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

[Aractus]

I don't feel like citing everything again, but I'll provide the sources you requested:
Iron & Alzheimer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150596
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19968254
http://wnit.org/braingames/pdf/risk.pdf (up to half of Alzheimer's cases seems to be preventable with diet and lifestyle changes)

In case you didn't notice I'm not interested at all in that claim, especially since vegan diets are iron deficient.

B12:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/38/3/436.long
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/3/852.full.pdf
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/2/514.full (1 in 6 meat eaters is b12 deficient)

A 1983 paper, are you serious? That's when I was BORN.

Anyway you're well in denial if you're saying B12 isn't a specifically vegetarian deficiency.

Protein and many of the diseases I mentioned:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsou...t/protein/ (a good summary of why animal protein is bad)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/5/1203S.full.pdf (plant protein sources)

On the second link it states that incomplete amino acids come from plants; it is not an academic paper describing whether all humans can digest such proteins.

As for the first paper, it's so biased I can't believe you'd even link to it. Granted the studies they link to do show the results they claim, but they have nothing to do with protein or protein source in particular. This is just an example of data-mining.

Some stuff about milk and bone health:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8610662

From the abstract you link to it states nothing about calcium to bone health; and it's nearly 20 years old.

Heart disease & cholesterol:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/17...l.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21029840
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9036757

Which I'm not going to bother to read until you demonstrate to me that you even know what cholesterol is??

By the way, I'd like a source on the we need 15% of cholesterol from diet thing. And do you really think the numbers of mental illness are caused by cholesterol deficiency? The far, far majority of people eats meat, dairy and eggs constantly, so I don't think that's the problem we're facing right now.

You'll find that in any textbook. Try Saladin, K. Anatomy and Physiology (6th ed), 2012. To quote from that book: "There is only one kind of cholesterol, and it does far more good than harm" (p. 66).

I admit there is a lot less calcium in naturally occurring plant foods than in milk, but the calcium in plant foods does come with a lot less baggage.

You have this concept of "baggage" that is arbitrary.

Well, if you're not going to rear animals there's gonna be more demand for plant foods, although admittedly plant foods need way less space than livestock. The remaining room could be used for forests, those are nice and excellent for the environment. By the way, don't delude yourself; 99% of the animals raised for slaughter live on factory farms.

So what? Chickens are factory farmed, which I don't have a problem with.

Cattle are raised on grass, and around 80% or so are fattened on seed in feed lots.

All are killed humanely (this is Australia I'm talking about).

The reason I think the meat and dairy industries are the biggest environmental problem right now:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/13/460552...can-fix-it

Yeah, I'd be a little more sceptical of that if I were you. That's all I'll say for now on that.

Livestock industry is resonsible for 50% of human -caused greenhouse gasses

That's true, but I'm not concerned about anthropogenic GHGs.

---

If we weigh the amount of b12 that we need in our lifetime it would have the same weight as 3 or 4 rice grains.
We can get this amount in the occasional unwashed food that we eat here and there but to be 100% safe many people opt for b12 supplement from non-meat sources.

Harley was raised veterinarian, not vegan, from the age of 4. He had very low B12 and took B12 oral supplements, which did not raise his B12. He then tried IV B12. That caused him to realise that you need meat for B12, and if you need meat for B12 perhaps you need it for other things. After that he changed his diet and mostly healed himself.

When the arteries are clogged up with saturated fats and cholesterol from mainly meat and eggs the blood can not get to the brains easily and this is one factor Alzheimer, dementia and Parkinson diseases but other factors are also to take in due consideration like the fluoridation in the water.
http://www.fluoridegate.org/the-film/

1. what do you think "saturated" vs. "unsaturated" fat is?
2. what do you think cholesterol is?

Long long time ago Australia was covered in dense forests.
How do we know?

Ha, no it wasn't.

Dumbass.

The experts are those whose suggestions give top results.
Again how can you call expert people whose suggestions lead to sickness?

Incorrect. "Experts" are people who conduct research and publish evidence.

[miniboes]

In case you didn't notice I'm not interested at all in that claim, especially since vegan diets are iron deficient.

You said "nobody knows what causes Alzheimer's", so I present studies that have made progress in the prevention of Alzheimer and finding out what causes it. Please provide evidence for you claim on iron deficiency.

A 1983 paper, are you serious? That's when I was BORN.

You think human biology changed since then?

Anyway you're well in denial if you're saying B12 isn't a specifically vegetarian deficiency.

Have you seen the third source? If 1 in 6 meat-eaters has b12 deficiency it does not sound unique to veg*ns to me.

On the second link it states that incomplete amino acids come from plants; it is not an academic paper describing whether all humans can digest such proteins.

I just gave it to point out there are plenty of plant protein sources.

As for the first paper, it's so biased I can't believe you'd even link to it. Granted the studies they link to do show the results they claim, but they have nothing to do with protein or protein source in particular. This is just an example of data-mining.

How did you determine it is biased?

From the abstract you link to it states nothing about calcium to bone health; and it's nearly 20 years old.

There's a button on the right to the full text, here's a direct link: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/143/5/472.long

And I repeat; you think human biology changed the last 20 years?

Which I'm not going to bother to read until you demonstrate to me that you even know what cholesterol is??

Doesn't seem relevant.

You'll find that in any textbook. Try Saladin, K. Anatomy and Physiology (6th ed), 2012. To quote from that book: "There is only one kind of cholesterol, and it does far more good than harm" (p. 66).

I'll do some research on that, interesting.

You have this concept of "baggage" that is arbitrary.

Sorry, I'll explain what I mean; animal foods have useful nutrients like calcium and iron, but there is a problem with using them as sources for such, being that they always come with nutrient I believe to be unhealthy; saturated fat, trans fat, animal protein and cholesterol. This is what I call baggage. I think it is better to get these nutrients from sources that don't have this baggage, for example soy milk for protein and calcium rather than cow milk.

All are killed humanely (this is Australia I'm talking about).

What the fuck does this even mean? How does it even make a difference? How did you determine that the killing is 'humane'? If I kill a man, but he experienced no pain, would it be okay for me to kill him? Is that the sort of morals you live by?

That's true, but I'm not concerned about anthropogenic GHGs.

Why would you not be?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, if you're not going to rear animals there's gonna be more demand for plant foods, although admittedly plant foods need way less space than livestock.

One might imagine so, but one would be wrong. If there were less meat there wouldn't be any reason to grow any more plants (and people wouldn't be looking to buy any more veggies). That market is already so saturated that we had to find something to do with the vast excess we currently produce. At present, that excess is used to feed livestock. Amusingly, if we lessened our livestock operations there would be -less- demand for a wide range of agricultural commodities.

As to the space livestock takes relative to crops - that's far too general a claim to make. Commercial spacing of pumpkins(and many other Cucurbitaceae) is 8foot in-row, 14 foot between rows. That's 112sq feet of space. That footprint extends upwards indefinitely, imagine the cubic feet. Maturation is on the short end 80 days on the long end up to 200. Imagine how many egg laying chickens would fit in a structure 112feet square and as tall as I can soundly build it? Imagine the number of eggs I would produce in two to seven months? Now imagine the useful byproducts, particularly the refuse (which can be processed into fertilizer). I'm going to get alot more out of egg laying hens than I am out of any commensurate space covered in pumpkins (and a wide range of other crops). On the other hand, lettuce, 6sq inches - 50-55 days seed to bolt.

So depending on what sort of livestock we're talking (fish are the big spoiler here, as they can be stocked vertically as high as the walls of their containment can be built or dug) and what sort of crop we're talking about the relative space required for either is going to change dramatically and will most definitely not skew toward crops over livestock as styated so generally in any significant way. This ignores the relative nutrient density between either source or the efficiency of use. Livestock is a very dense storage space for crop sourced nutrients, and when it comes to veggies it's generally only a very small percentage of the total structure of the crop that is consumed or used - single digit land use efficiency percentages when viewed by metrics of market.

After all of that, you have to consider the end product itself. The ease of transportation and preservation, the distance traveled from source to consumer (here livestock has a distinct advantage that we no longer avail ourselves of. As Aract has pointed out, livestock is produced on land not useful for ag - but it can also be produced in time not useful for ag. You can get an egg out of tomato season and from your own backyard.

If we wanted to create a more local and sustainable food production system - we would necessarrily have to include livestock to make best use of all available resources- and as a means of producing the fertility required for all of our other crops. And as regards the forests - little would help to reduce the destruction of those forests (and the further destruction caused by fossil fuel usage in both fertility, transportation, refridgeration, and production) more than greater land use efficiency in food production combined with sustainable alternative fertility sources.


I mention all of this not so that I can dress you down. I don't expect that many people at all would be so familiar with ag as to discuss the relative land use efficiency of any given production model. That's something that would be beyond even those -in the know- to determine without referring to a land use analysis (which is how ag startups and continuing operation are considered in the first place). I mention it so that you might see why no sweeping generalizations are really available in the discussion, and maybe so that I can get you geeked out about food production a little(it's an unbelievable difficult and rewarding subject to have any sort of constructive back and forth on). I'm always looking to lure you folks into my web.

(land use efficiency is the primary concern in my seasonal business plan. I have to arrange for a ratio of high eff crops (judged by gross) to cover the losses incurred by low eff crops that also happen to be all the big veggies, full of nutrients, that bring people to the door. In essence, I have to first produce, and then convince people to buy 10 lbs of lettuce for every lb of tomato - for example - I lose money on the tomatos, no matter how extravagantly priced. I'm actually saving every dime I can to get an integrated system up and running so that I can absorb that loss more effectively by reducing my input requirements and creating a byproduct stream that plugs into an underexploited and lucrative market. Fresh fish -particularly in my landlocked state- that's a bit too hilly and rocky for mixed veggie production, judged against more lucrative locations for the same, Florida, California, Mississippi, Louisiana, Mexico, etc)

[The Grand Nudger]

As an addendum-

What the fuck does this even mean? How does it even make a difference? How did you determine that the killing is 'humane'? If I kill a man, but he experienced no pain, would it be okay for me to kill him? Is that the sort of morals you live by?

Lets consider that question in what is otherwise the context of livestock production. You need to kill that man. In that context I would defintely allow that the manner in which you do so has relevance to whether or not I would regard your actions as humane.

If you swiftly hit them over the head with a brick so hard that they were dead -tutsweet- ....... I would feel very comfortable stating that this was more humane(or "more moral") than had you killed the man by slashing some artery or asphyxiating him while you simulataneoulsy carved chunks off of his body while he yet lived. To be blunt, had you gone with the latter I'd be hard pressed to determine which of you was the more inhumane or immoral person even if the reason that you found yourself in such need was that he attacked you.

So, personally - yes, these are the morals I live by. I'm fairly confident that you live by them as well. I would suggest that your appraisal of the moral or humane status of livestock production in the general is based less on either the possibilities present, or the majority of operations in either the US or Aus...and more on the worst possible examples of people who bend or break every rule and every established best practice...with just a smidgeon of naivety as to how food is produced but also as to how the propaganda for -all- sides of this hotly debated issue is generated and marketed to the public.

[miniboes]

Lets consider that question in what is otherwise the context of livestock production. You need to kill that man.

We can argue all day about what is the best diet, but one thing is certain and that is that you can be healthy with a vegan diet. You only need to kill that man for pleasure and convenience, which I do not think is a good enough reason to make a being suffer. Let's take it one step further; if you did not only kill a man here and there, but you breed billions upon billions of humans to exploit them, feed them obese and then kill them in the end, what kind of person are you? Because that's what's happening with animals, the deaths are equal to thousands of holocausts every single year. Should we not all strive to minimize suffering?

It is also to be noted that the whole thing about painless killing is absolutely worthless if before it happens the animals are brought in screaming and horrified.

I'll respond to your other post later, I'm tired.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can argue all day about what is the best diet, but one thing is certain and that is that you can be healthy with a vegan diet.

With additional supplements from decidely non-vegan sources, sure.

You only need to kill that man for pleasure and convenience, which I do not think is a good enough reason to make a being suffer.

If it's a need that I do so- so be it. I can't do anything about my needs. I think you're leaving out some fairly important details about food production here to reduce meat to an issue of pleasure or convenience.

Let's take it one step further; if you did not only kill a man here and there, but you breed billions upon billions of humans to exploit them, feed them obese and then kill them in the end, what kind of person are you?

Inhumane, but am I doing this, and does this need to be done to produce livestock? Nope, and nope.

Because that's what's happening with animals, the deaths are equal to thousands of holocausts every single year. Should we not all strive to minimize suffering?

Yup, by thoroughly integrating livestock production into our overall food production policies and phasing out unsustainable and deleterious oil-to-food schemes.

It is also to be noted that the whole thing about painless killing is absolutely worthless if before it happens the animals are brought in screaming and horrified.

Sounds shitty - definitely not best practice (and probably costs alot of money in lost efficiency). You can argue against poor practice all day long - I'm right there with you.

There's a middle road here, you aren't having a discussion with someone who thinks that ag as practiced is a very good idea...even if all of the things that you think about it -aren't true- let alone whether or not they are. Your objections aren't really required for me to hold a negative position on the matter, and that's good, because some of them are just meh. You don't need them to advocate for a change in food policy or the humane treatment of animals either. I would actually suggest that carrying that baggage makes the job even more difficult.

[Aractus]

You said "nobody knows what causes Alzheimer's", so I present studies that have made progress in the prevention of Alzheimer and finding out what causes it. Please provide evidence for you claim on iron deficiency.

That's right, no one knows what causes dementia, let alone alzheimers. It's theorised to be preventable, but it's not curable.

A 1983 paper, are you serious? That's when I was BORN.

You think human biology changed since then?

Yes, it's changed a lot. We only found out about the ghrelin and leptin hormones, for instance, in the mid 90's; we didn't know what cholesterol was for in 1983; we thought that saturated fat was bad and in fact the "experts at the time" recommended reducing daily fat by around 1/4th, which resulted in more people eating more grains and more refined sugars. And in 1983 there was only a very rudimentary understanding of B12 and B12 deficiency.

Have you seen the third source? If 1 in 6 meat-eaters has b12 deficiency it does not sound unique to veg*ns to me.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the full text. However, some people have lower B12 levels without problem, not everyone "needs" B12 levels higher than 170 pg/ml, just like some people have a BMI of 18 naturally without problem and would not actually be underweight for them. Nothing about the study suggests the cohorts were exclusively meat eaters?

And I repeat; you think human biology changed the last 20 years?

And I repeat; yes it has changed an awful lot.

Sorry, I'll explain what I mean; animal foods have useful nutrients like calcium and iron, but there is a problem with using them as sources for such, being that they always come with nutrient I believe to be unhealthy; saturated fat, trans fat, animal protein and cholesterol. This is what I call baggage.

Okay, and I'll explain this again:

The only difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats is the fact that (a) saturated fats are not considered essential (i.e. we can synthesise them), but at least least one unsaturated fatty acid is essential (meaning we can't create it from anabolic metabolism), and (b) that palmitic acid in the diet is thought to raise blood cholesterol levels, and linoleic acid does the opposite. And dietary cholesterol has no direct effect on blood cholesterol levels.

Meat and dairy only contain trace amounts of trans fat. I believe you mostly get it in vegetable oil since it's an artificial product (which is why I typically don't use vegetable oil, and prefer the natural alternative of olive oil).

I think it is better to get these nutrients from sources that don't have this baggage, for example soy milk for protein and calcium rather than cow milk.

Soy milk is not a naturally occurring product, it's a processed food.

What the fuck does this even mean? How does it even make a difference? How did you determine that the killing is 'humane'? If I kill a man, but he experienced no pain, would it be okay for me to kill him? Is that the sort of morals you live by?

Cows are not humans. They are animals, and not very intelligent ones at that.

We are designed to eat meat.

Some people can go a very long time without any problems without eating meat, but other people cannot. 85% of people in the USA who go vegetarian ultimately return to eating meat after an average of nine years (see Psychology Today). The main reason, given by 35% of those who return to eating meat, is for their health.

One example is Alex Jamieson. She seese herself as a "holistic health counsellor", and is a proponent for improving your health through diet, especially veganisim. Her approach has always been moderate - to tell her clients to do what is right for their bodies. Unlike other "holistic health" nut-cases who believe all medications are bad, etc (e.g. Dr Doug Graham), and that all ailments can be healed though the diet. She notes that it was very good for her body for a long time, that it did heal her, but that after 13 years she started having problems. Her periods stopped, and other health problems arose, she started craving meat which she had not craved in a very long time. Ultimately she found out that she needed to return to eating meat for her health and well-being.

Why would you not be?

Because their effect on the so-called "greenhouse effect" is limited.

---

We can argue all day about what is the best diet, but one thing is certain and that is that you can be healthy with a vegan diet.

That's simply not true. Some people find veganisim healthy for them for some length of time, I'm aware of no data that suggests that veganisim is healthy for anyone for their whole lives, and if you bothered to check the example I gave (trollsneedhugs on youtube), you'd see that someone raised vegetarian from an early age developed a number of very serious medical conditions and could not heal as a vegan no matter what he tried. He also could not put on any muscle. There are at least 4 or 5 videos where he talks about his ailments in detail well prior to eating meat (most over a year earlier).

[miniboes]

With additional supplements from decidely non-vegan sources, sure.

Name me one nutrient that I need and I cannot get a vegan supplement for.

If it's a need that I do so- so be it. I can't do anything about my needs. I think you're leaving out some fairly important details about food production here to reduce meat to an issue of pleasure or convenience.

Which details?

Let's take it one step further; if you did not only kill a man here and there, but you breed billions upon billions of humans to exploit them, feed them obese and then kill them in the end, what kind of person are you?

Inhumane, but am I doing this, and does this need to be done to produce livestock? Nope, and nope.

You're paying people to do these things, albeit not to humans but animals that suffer just as much. You know, Hitler didn't kill Jews personally, he paid people to do it, it doesn't make a difference ethically.

Yup, by thoroughly integrating livestock production into our overall food production policies and phasing out unsustainable and deleterious oil-to-food schemes.

How would that reduce suffering?

Sounds shitty - definitely not best practice (and probably costs alot of money in lost efficiency). You can argue against poor practice all day long - I'm right there with you.

Yet you pay to support these practices.

Here's the problem with humane treatment; even if you treat the animals nicely (which is not happening in the world I live in), you should not treat them as property. It's slavery still.

---

That's right, no one knows what causes dementia, let alone alzheimers. It's theorised to be preventable, but it's not curable.

Well, actually, there's a pretty good theory. In a brain with Alzheimer's plaques of iron, copper and zinc are found that promote free radicals, and so the oxidation of the brain leading to memory loss. Also, if we can prevent it we no longer have a need to cure it.

Yes, it's changed a lot. We only found out about the ghrelin and leptin hormones, for instance, in the mid 90's; we didn't know what cholesterol was for in 1983; we thought that saturated fat was bad and in fact the "experts at the time" recommended reducing daily fat by around 1/4th, which resulted in more people eating more grains and more refined sugars. And in 1983 there was only a very rudimentary understanding of B12 and B12 deficiency.

I meant to ask if our bodies actually changed, as in our brains and blood vessels and lungs. Perhaps I should have phrased that differently, sorry.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to read the full text. However, some people have lower B12 levels without problem, not everyone "needs" B12 levels higher than 170 pg/ml, just like some people have a BMI of 18 naturally without problem and would not actually be underweight for them. Nothing about the study suggests the cohorts were exclusively meat eaters?

Although it might not be a problem it contradicts your notion that eating meat is a sufficient source of b12. I don't know what makes you convinced that it is not a problem in this 17% but it is a problem in vegans.

The only difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats is the fact that (a) saturated fats are not considered essential (i.e. we can synthesise them), but at least least one unsaturated fatty acid is essential (meaning we can't create it from anabolic metabolism), and (b) that palmitic acid in the diet is thought to raise blood cholesterol levels, and linoleic acid does the opposite.

I'll come back on this later, little time to do research right now.

And dietary cholesterol has no direct effect on blood cholesterol levels.

That's just not true.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/44/2/299.long

Meat and dairy only contain trace amounts of trans fat. I believe you mostly get it in vegetable oil since it's an artificial product (which is why I typically don't use vegetable oil, and prefer the natural alternative of olive oil).

Yes, trans fats are found in vegetable oils because through hydrogenation the vegetable fats are rearranged in a way that makes them behave more like animal fats. Half of our trans fat intake still comes from animal products though (Link). According to the official USDA nutrient database cheese, milk, yoghurt, beef and chicken contain 1 to 5% trans fats (Link). Some non-hydrogenated vegetable oils also have some, but that's from 0,1 to 0,5. Are a few grams a problem? Well, as any increase in trans fat intake increases your risk of CVD the only safe intake seems to be 0 (Link).

---

Cows are not humans. They are animals, and not very intelligent ones at that.

How is that relevant?

We are designed to eat meat.

How did you determine that and how is that relevant?

Some people can go a very long time without any problems without eating meat, but other people cannot. 85% of people in the USA who go vegetarian ultimately return to eating meat after an average of nine years (see Psychology Today). The main reason, given by 35% of those who return to eating meat, is for their health.

I do not find what 35% of 85% of vegetarians think very compelling in any sense.

One example is Alex Jamieson. She seese herself as a "holistic health counsellor", and is a proponent for improving your health through diet, especially veganisim. Her approach has always been moderate - to tell her clients to do what is right for their bodies. Unlike other "holistic health" nut-cases who believe all medications are bad, etc (e.g. Dr Doug Graham), and that all ailments can be healed though the diet. She notes that it was very good for her body for a long time, that it did heal her, but that after 13 years she started having problems. Her periods stopped, and other health problems arose, she started craving meat which she had not craved in a very long time. Ultimately she found out that she needed to return to eating meat for her health and well-being.

I do not find anecdotal evidence very compelling either.

Because their effect on the so-called "greenhouse effect" is limited.

Wow, I thought only the religious made that claim. This report from the IPCC makes clear that if we want to avoid irreversible impacts on our planet we may need to reduce our emissions to zero.

That's simply not true. Some people find veganisim healthy for them for some length of time, I'm aware of no data that suggests that veganisim is healthy for anyone for their whole lives, and if you bothered to check the example I gave (trollsneedhugs on youtube), you'd see that someone raised vegetarian from an early age developed a number of very serious medical conditions and could not heal as a vegan no matter what he tried. He also could not put on any muscle. There are at least 4 or 5 videos where he talks about his ailments in detail well prior to eating meat (most over a year earlier).

Again, I am not interested in anecdotal evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

Name me one nutrient that I need and I cannot get a vegan supplement for.

Depends on whether or not you can reliably leverage bacterials (or any of the means of production/delivery for any supplement) and what brand of veganism one has thrown their chips in with.

Which details?

You ready for a long and disappointing discussion?

You're paying people to do these things, albeit not to humans but animals that suffer just as much. You know, Hitler didn't kill Jews personally, he paid people to do it, it doesn't make a difference ethically.

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 think that if we want to start going over our relative contributions to misery with a fine toothed comb neither of us is going to come out very clean. I'm willing to give you a pass, I think that there are things beyond your control that your money is trickling into that say nothing about you, personally. I think that it would be unreasonable to expect someone to achieve the impossible just for the honor of not being called immoral. 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, I guess I'll just have to fall short. hrugs:

How would that reduce suffering?

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

Yet you pay to support these practices.

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?

Here's the problem with humane treatment; even if you treat the animals nicely (which is not happening in the world I live in), you should not treat them as property. It's slavery still.

-and here we find a more specific example that can be used to answer the very first question in your post. For you, any of the bacterial supplementals should be off the table (I'm really not sure that eating -anything- should be on the table in the first place). Wouldn't want to be a dirty bacterial slaveholder, now would we? I hope I don't have to field any complaints about a loose usage of the term slavery.........

[Aractus]

Well, actually, there's a pretty good theory. In a brain with Alzheimer's plaques of iron, copper and zinc are found that promote free radicals, and so the oxidation of the brain leading to memory loss. Also, if we can prevent it we no longer have a need to cure it.

Incorrect. Even if we can prevent it then we still need to find a cure and better treatment for people who still get it. Example: just because we know how to prevent HIV infection doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I meant to ask if our bodies actually changed, as in our brains and blood vessels and lungs. Perhaps I should have phrased that differently, sorry.

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.

Although it might not be a problem it contradicts your notion that eating meat is a sufficient source of b12. I don't know what makes you convinced that it is not a problem in this 17% but it is a problem in vegans.

Animal products are the only dietary source of B12, it says so in my anatomy textbook (Saladin 2012). We do not get any B12 from water, from fruits and vegetables, from fungi or from grains.

And dietary cholesterol has no direct effect on blood cholesterol levels.

That's just not true.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/44/2/299.long

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 synthesised, primarily by the liver."

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

Yes, trans fats are found in vegetable oils because through hydrogenation the vegetable fats are rearranged in a way that makes them behave more like animal fats.

Which is a good reason to avoid deep-fried food.

Half of our trans fat intake still comes from animal products though (Link). According to the official USDA nutrient database cheese, milk, yoghurt, beef and chicken contain 1 to 5% trans fats (Link). Some non-hydrogenated vegetable oils also have some, but that's from 0,1 to 0,5. Are a few grams a problem? Well, as any increase in trans fat intake increases your risk of CVD the only safe intake seems to be 0 (Link).

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

How did you determine that and how is that relevant?

Because we require meat for balanced nutrition. Because we can digest meat, but not lectins and not cellulose.

I do not find anecdotal evidence very compelling either.

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?

Wow, I thought only the religious made that claim. This report from the IPCC makes clear that if we want to avoid irreversible impacts on our planet we may need to reduce our emissions to zero.

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

In the peer-review literature and scientific discussion on this a lot of the so-called "majority" of climate scientists are very moderate and do not agree with the IPCC projections. There is discussion by both sides as to whether anthropogenic gasses are solely responsible for the present temperature trend, and also what that means for the future. To date every projection made since the 90's has turned out to be wrong, and every IPCC report the projected increase for the next 100 years has been getting smaller. They told us around 2000 that the planet would warm by up to 8 degrees by 2100, now they say 2-4 degrees.

As a sceptic, let's say I agree with that forecast. I also agree that CO2 is 47% responsible for the anthropogenic component with methane 27% or so responsible, black carbon I think is 24% or so and then CFC's and trace GHG's to make up the rest. Let's say I also think that anthropogenic activity overall may contribute 50% of the present climate trend. That would mean that we have "control" over 1-2 out of the 2-4 degrees of warming, and by cutting out CO2 entirely we could only potentially reduce the warming of the planet by 0.47 - 0.94 degrees.

Again, I am not interested in anecdotal evidence.

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