Saturated Fat Controversy

[Succubus]

Line breaks will make this mess...

Therefore a vegan diet is not really beneficial?

Er, no, I am saying that the claims such as "Fish contains good fats, including omega-3-acids, so it protects against heart disease." or "Flax contains a lot of omega-3-acids, therefore it protects against heart disease." aren't based on solid evidence.

Then you have not looked very far.

You are one making an extraordinary claim (that one of the most respected nutritionists of our time has said obviously wrong stuff), so the burden of proof is on you.

If you are going to a priori reject and replicable scientific study, then what's the point?

If it doesn't control for a known and a huge factor (make sure that it's not that most of the participants already have high cholesterol levels), then it can't really be called "scientific".

Should everybody therefore stop eating?

No, what I am saying is that GMOs can save us from cancer, and that it perhaps could have already if it hadn't been for the anti-GMO movement.

Then look it the fuck up.

Again, you are one making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

An enormous amount of drugs that you or I take for granted are developed from and tested on animals.

How do you know? What I do know is that insulin used to be extracted from horse blood, but now it's synthesized from oil-derived compounds.
As for testing on animals, I think you know it's a very controversial topic, and that the evidence that testing on animals helps is very wobbly.

Bullshit. Another lie invented by the vegan terrorists. Any fresh animal flesh supplies copious B12.

Claiming that some well-known thing (that meat from factory-farmed animals doesn't contain adequate amount of B12 because of the antibiotics) is false places the burden of proof on you.

And that is a different issue which has real ramifications. But fuck all to do with veganism.

It's quite well-accepted that people switching to a vegetarian diet would greatly reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance.

Or alternatively, don't be a vegan.

OK, so, if you are not a vegan, you essentially have four ways of getting B12:
1. Eat a lot of sea-food. (Which is expensive.)
2. Make sure the meat you eat comes from animals that haven't been treated with antibiotics. (Which is inconvenient and expensive.)
3. Eat unclean fruits and vegetables. (Which is not safe.)
4. Get the pills.
If you are a vegan, then there are two ways, namely, the last two of those mentioned.
Either way, the best way appears to be the 4th one.

Another vegan lie.

What does that have to do with veganism?

Left to their own devices, their lives will necessarily be nasty, brutish and short.

First, what makes you think their lives would necessarily be shorter than in factory farms? In a factory farm, a cow lives 5-7 years, and a grass-fed cow lives 20-30 years.
Second, why would they be bred in the first place if nobody is eating meat?

Easier on the eye, like this.

FlatAssembler

Therefore a vegan diet is not really beneficial?

Er, no, I am saying that the claims such as "Fish contains good fats, including omega-3-acids, so it protects against heart disease." or "Flax contains a lot of omega-3-acids, therefore it protects against heart disease." aren't based on solid evidence.

Then you have not looked very far.

You are one making an extraordinary claim (that one of the most respected nutritionists of our time has said obviously wrong stuff), so the burden of proof is on you.

If you are going to a priori reject and replicable scientific study, then what's the point?

If it doesn't control for a known and a huge factor (make sure that it's not that most of the participants already have high cholesterol levels), then it can't really be called "scientific".

Should everybody therefore stop eating?

No, what I am saying is that GMOs can save us from cancer, and that it perhaps could have already if it hadn't been for the anti-GMO movement.

Then look it the fuck up.

Again, you are one making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

An enormous amount of drugs that you or I take for granted are developed from and tested on animals.

How do you know? What I do know is that insulin used to be extracted from horse blood, but now it's synthesized from oil-derived compounds.
As for testing on animals, I think you know it's a very controversial topic, and that the evidence that testing on animals helps is very wobbly.

Bullshit. Another lie invented by the vegan terrorists. Any fresh animal flesh supplies copious B12.

Claiming that some well-known thing (that meat from factory-farmed animals doesn't contain adequate amount of B12 because of the antibiotics) is false places the burden of proof on you.

And that is a different issue which has real ramifications. But fuck all to do with veganism.

It's quite well-accepted that people switching to a vegetarian diet would greatly reduce the problem of antibiotic resistance.

Or alternatively, don't be a vegan.

OK, so, if you are not a vegan, you essentially have four ways of getting B12:
1. Eat a lot of sea-food. (Which is expensive.)
2. Make sure the meat you eat comes from animals that haven't been treated with antibiotics. (Which is inconvenient and expensive.)
3. Eat unclean fruits and vegetables. (Which is not safe.)
4. Get the pills.
If you are a vegan, then there are two ways, namely, the last two of those mentioned.
Either way, the best way appears to be the 4th one.

Another vegan lie.

What does that have to do with veganism?

Left to their own devices, their lives will necessarily be nasty, brutish and short.

First, what makes you think their lives would necessarily be shorter than in factory farms? In a factory farm, a cow lives 5-7 years, and a grass-fed cow lives 20-30 years.
Second, why would they be bred in the first place if nobody is eating meat?

[FlatAssembler]

See the above study.

OK, the abstract of that study basically says that giving up meat reduces the risk of heart disease by around 30%, except for fish, it makes no difference if you eat fish or not regarding the heart disease. I don't see that as contradicting something Greger is saying.

Meat and fish contain 3 and 4 times as much B12 as any vegetable respectively.

Where are you getting that from? If a vegetable contains B12, there is a big chance it also contains dangerous bacteria.

While antibiotics are a problem, that is for other reasons, not B12.

Antibiotics in meat industry are a problem both because of antibiotic resistance, and because they kill the bacteria that produce B12.

I eat a fair amount of fresh seafood. It isn't particularly expensive.

OK, now, a can of fish, which contains, if you are being generous, 50 micrograms of B12, costs, if you are being generous, 9 kunas. A packing of B12 supplements, of 50 pills of 100 micrograms, costs 60 kunas. So, trying to get B12 from fish is an order of a magnitude more expensive than getting it from pills.

And utterly irrelevant to B12 content.

Again, if you are going to deny a well-known fact that meat from animals that have been treated with antibiotics contains significantly less B12, the burden of proof is on you.

FFS.

Where do you think first humans got B12 from? From plants infected with bacteria, of course. First humans couldn't have hunted before the invention of the tools.

Veganism only works with artificial supplements.

Do you have any doubts first humans ate a mainly vegan diet?

Vegans reject GMO crops while being unaware that EVERYTHING they eat actually is a GMO.

This is as stupid as saying that atheists are communists or that atheists are against nuclear power. No, veganism in no way implies being anti-GMO.

That still leaves you with the millions that are currently alive.

This is as stupid as saying that we shouldn't stop smoking because workers at tobacco farms in Cuba might starve because of that.

[Abaddon_ire]

See the above study.

OK, the abstract of that study basically says that giving up meat reduces the risk of heart disease by around 30%, except for fish, it makes no difference if you eat fish or not regarding the heart disease. I don't see that as contradicting something Greger is saying.

OK then you have a reading comprehension failure.

Meat and fish contain 3 and 4 times as much B12 as any vegetable respectively.

Where are you getting that from? If a vegetable contains B12, there is a big chance it also contains dangerous bacteria.

From the scientific research that you conspicuously avoid.

While antibiotics are a problem, that is for other reasons, not B12.

Antibiotics in meat industry are a problem both because of antibiotic resistance, and because they kill the bacteria that produce B12.

Even if true (and you have failed to demonstrate that) meat still provides far more B12 than any vegetable source.

I eat a fair amount of fresh seafood. It isn't particularly expensive.

OK, now, a can of fish, which contains, if you are being generous, 50 micrograms of B12, costs, if you are being generous, 9 kunas. A packing of B12 supplements, of 50 pills of 100 micrograms, costs 60 kunas. So, trying to get B12 from fish is an order of a magnitude more expensive than getting it from pills.

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

And utterly irrelevant to B12 content.

Again, if you are going to deny a well-known fact that meat from animals that have been treated with antibiotics contains significantly less B12, the burden of proof is on you.

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.

FFS.

Where do you think first humans got B12 from? From plants infected with bacteria, of course. First humans couldn't have hunted before the invention of the tools.

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

Veganism only works with artificial supplements.

Do you have any doubts first humans ate a mainly vegan diet?

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

Vegans reject GMO crops while being unaware that EVERYTHING they eat actually is a GMO.

This is as stupid as saying that atheists are communists or that atheists are against nuclear power. No, veganism in no way implies being anti-GMO.

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.

That still leaves you with the millions that are currently alive.

This is as stupid as saying that we shouldn't stop smoking because workers at tobacco farms in Cuba might starve because of that.

Analogy failure. Workers at tobacco farms can seek other employ. Cows? Not so much. They can't stay in place because we would require that land to cultivate crops. Thus, in your magic fairyland, the cows would become...what? Arboreal tree dwelling tarzan beasts?

[FlatAssembler]

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 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.

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.

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

Because fresh fish is around 2 times more expensive?

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?

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

[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.

[FlatAssembler]

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

Well, reading comprehension depends on a number of factors. Have you published some academic papers in peer-reviewed journals? I've published a few academic papers about linguistics, so I probably understand academic papers better than most of the people.

So you claim without evidence.

Michael Greger's blog posts (on nutritionfacts.org) usually include a huge list of references, if that's what you mean by "evidence".

No, you are committed to the religion of veganism.

Well, one obvious difference between veganism and stuff that are usually called religions (Christianity, Islam...) is that veganism talks about stuff that's demonstrably there. There are the animals that are being kept in small and dirty rooms because people are eating meat. There are slaughterhouses in which animals are being slaughtered in very inhumane ways, primarily so to meet the halal standards. There are stupid laws that require drugs to be tested on animals, despite there being little to no evidence that they make us safer (they may even make us less safe, because, if you invented penicillin these days, it will probably be banned because it's deadly to hamsters), and despite the obvious animal suffering they cause. Cows these days often suffer from B12 deficiency -no need to imagine it, it's there. There are studies that show that cow's milk causes heart disease in humans. And they are backed up by very hard science, calcium supplements also lead to heart disease if you don't take Vitamin K (which cow's milk contains very little) - there appears to be no way a reasonable person can deny that. You might say the claims that saturated fat leads to heart disease or that it's the factory farming that causes antibiotic resistance require some degree of faith to believe, but that certainly requires way less faith to believe than to believe in global warming, yet alone in a religion such as Christianity.

So?

Sorry, what were you saying? I thought you were saying meat was the cheapest way to get enough B12.

The fact remains that copious B12 is obtained from meat in far more quantity than vegan diets allow. This is incontrovertible.

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean that B12 deficiency isn't common among farmed animals today? It is very common, especially in cows and sheep. On some farms, the food for cows is supplemented with cobalamin preventively because of that, ask anybody who has studied agriculture. Or do you mean to claim you can get B12 from meat from the animals that are deficient in B12? Well, keep in mind you need to take a few times more B12 than your body actually needs to make sure your body actually absorbs that amount.

Evolutionary biology is "speculative", is it?

"Scientific" study of what our ancestors were eating tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago and what nutrition-related illnesses they were getting because of that is a lot more speculative than nutritional science is. With nutritional science, you can make an actual study to see if calcium supplements without Vitamin K supplements lead to heart disease. With studying what people were eating hundreds of thousands of years ago, in most cases, you can just make guesses. At best, if there are remainings of food in the fossils, you can be reasonably certain what that individual last ate before he or she died.

Who cares which superstition "vegans" adhere to?

Claiming that B12 supplement is more unhealthy than meat that contains B12, despite there being no evidence for that, is just as much of a superstition as anti-GMO nonsense is.

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

What does it tell? Why is it bad to listen to what YouTubers who (at least mostly) adhere to mainstream science have to say?

Why did you introduce that strawman?

A strawman would be if I assumed you advocate the paleo diet. I didn't assume that, in fact, I assumed you despise those who advocate paleo diets more than you despise veganism.

Cuba is poor because we in the west have made it so.

It's a combination of factors, of course. They have been going from one dictatorship into the other. The Castro brothers overthrew the dictatorship by Fulgencio Batista, who didn't support economic and social freedoms. Unfortunatly, the Castro brothers also didn't support economic and social freedoms. And the economic sanctions put by the US certainly aren't helping, they are affecting the country the same way anti-sweatshops movements do: they are hurting exactly the people they are supposed to help.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Bold mine. What studies do or even would? I don't think it's ethical to conduct true experiments in these cases, only quasi-experiments at most.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you of course, and you're making a different point from what I think you're making.

[FlatAssembler]

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.

Bold mine. What studies do or even would? I don't think it's ethical to conduct true experiments in these cases, only quasi-experiments at most.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you of course, and you're making a different point from what I think you're making.

Well, you are probably right, it's probably unethical to perform controlled studies about saturated fat leading to heart disease just so a few fools might be convinced.

[LastPoet]

Why do you care about what other people eat?

[Abaddon_ire]

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

Well, reading comprehension depends on a number of factors. Have you published some academic papers in peer-reviewed journals? I've published a few academic papers about linguistics, so I probably understand academic papers better than most of the people.

I have reason to doubt your comprehension because you have demonstrated a lack thereof in this very thread. As we shall see shortly.

So you claim without evidence.

Michael Greger's blog posts (on nutritionfacts.org) usually include a huge list of references, if that's what you mean by "evidence".

And recieives a point by point rebuttal on sciencebasedmedicine.org. Oh yes. I forgot. You are unable to operate google.

No, you are committed to the religion of veganism.

Well, one obvious difference between veganism and stuff that are usually called religions (Christianity, Islam...) is that veganism talks about stuff that's demonstrably there.

You mean like death being a food borne disease? That kind of religious zealotry which is blatantly faith based?

There are the animals that are being kept in small and dirty rooms because people are eating meat.

Not really. Cattle wander the fields, sheep wander the mountains, free range chickens are ubiquitous and pigs are cleaner than humans.

There are slaughterhouses in which animals are being slaughtered in very inhumane ways, primarily so to meet the halal standards.

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

There are stupid laws that require drugs to be tested on animals, despite there being little to no evidence that they make us safer.

Some testing is superfluous, some is necessary. It is not the black and white issue that your vegan zealotry leads you to believe as an article of faith.

(they may even make us less safe, because, if you invented penicillin these days, it will probably be banned because it's deadly to hamsters),

What a daft argument. Please share these global anti-hamster murder that laws were passed. And do you know why hamsters are useful in testing? They share a characteristic with us not found in other animals. Do you know what that is?

and despite the obvious animal suffering they cause. Cows these days often suffer from B12 deficiency -no need to imagine it, it's there.

See, there is that zealotry again. Back to the B12 crapfest.

There are studies that show that cow's milk causes heart disease in humans.

So what? There are studies that show coffee causes cancer. There are studies that show coffee cures cancer. All you are doing is cherry picking the studies you are told to pick by your "pope".

And they are backed up by very hard science,

Then cite them.

calcium supplements also lead to heart disease

So what? I don't take supplements.

if you don't take Vitamin K (which cow's milk contains very little) - there appears to be no way a reasonable person can deny that.

Eat a fucking banana once in a while.

You might say the claims that saturated fat leads to heart disease or that it's the factory farming that causes antibiotic resistance require some degree of faith to believe,

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

 but that certainly requires way less faith to believe than to believe in global warming,

Global warming is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of facts and evidence.

yet alone in a religion such as Christianity.

I am an atheist. I don't care what christians believe or have faith in. Why? Because they have no EVIDENCE.

So?

Sorry, what were you saying? I thought you were saying meat was the cheapest way to get enough B12.

And here we go. No, that is not what I said at all. You are either lying or your comprehension is crap.

The fact remains that copious B12 is obtained from meat in far more quantity than vegan diets allow. This is incontrovertible.

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean that B12 deficiency isn't common among farmed animals today? It is very common, especially in cows and sheep. On some farms, the food for cows is supplemented with cobalamin preventively because of that, ask anybody who has studied agriculture. Or do you mean to claim you can get B12 from meat from the animals that are deficient in B12? Well, keep in mind you need to take a few times more B12 than your body actually needs to make sure your body actually absorbs that amount.

And more comprehension failure. What I said was that I have no need of B12 supplements thanks to a balanced diet. Learn to read.

Evolutionary biology is "speculative", is it?

"Scientific" study of what our ancestors were eating tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago and what nutrition-related illnesses they were getting because of that is a lot more speculative than nutritional science is.

Is it? Shame that is not what evolutionary biology is all about then.

With nutritional science, you can make an actual study to see if calcium supplements without Vitamin K supplements lead to heart disease. With studying what people were eating hundreds of thousands of years ago, in most cases, you can just make guesses. At best, if there are remainings of food in the fossils, you can be reasonably certain what that individual last ate before he or she died.

Nope that still is not evolutionary biology. Did your high priest tell you it was?

Who cares which superstition "vegans" adhere to?

Claiming that B12 supplement is more unhealthy than meat that contains B12, despite there being no evidence for that, is just as much of a superstition as anti-GMO nonsense is.

Strawman. I made no such claim. I simply claimed that a balanced diet provides all the B12 a body needs without supplements at all.

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

What does it tell? Why is it bad to listen to what YouTubers who (at least mostly) adhere to mainstream science have to say?

Because youtube is a minefield for the unwary. If one were to uncritically accept youtube videos then one would believe the earth was flat.

Why did you introduce that strawman?

A strawman would be if I assumed you advocate the paleo diet. I didn't assume that, in fact, I assumed you despise those who advocate paleo diets more than you despise veganism.

You are substituting a new strawman for the previous one. I simply do not "despise" paleo or vegan diets. They are to me foolish fads not worth considering on any level. Sure, some gullible people will fall for them, no skin off my nose. Right up to the point they try to shove it forcibly up my nose. Then we have a problem.

Cuba is poor because we in the west have made it so.

It's a combination of factors, of course. They have been going from one dictatorship into the other. The Castro brothers overthrew the dictatorship by Fulgencio Batista, who didn't support economic and social freedoms. Unfortunatly, the Castro brothers also didn't support economic and social freedoms. And the economic sanctions put by the US certainly aren't helping, they are affecting the country the same way anti-sweatshops movements do: they are hurting exactly the people they are supposed to help.

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