Is it the same Pain?

[brimstoneSalad]

Mushrooms and avocado aren't even the best sources of B vitamins. You'd probably get a higher amount through through potatoes, greens, fortified cereals etc. for B6, B1, and folate.

They probably are the best sources, because...

Potatoes are filling and not very nutrient dense.
Greens likewise are filling, and aside from smoothies (which many people don't like) it's hard for people to eat a lot of them. Mushrooms and avocados are both more liked and easier to eat in significant amounts for those nutrients.
Fortified cereals are almost always refined grains, and the breakfast cereals are usually loaded with sugars. Not necessarily a nutritional win.

And of course no plant food is a reliable source of B12. They often contain inactive B12 analog compounds that can't be absorbed by the body. And even if they are available, it would probably be far below the RDA of 2.4 mcg.

Correct, I didn't mean to imply B-12 which I assume people must arrange independent supplementation for.

Most vegans probably supplement rice with vegetables or a multivitamin. I agree that rice probably isn't the best to fill up on because it's so low in vitamins and protein.

They may think they are, but it takes far more vegetables to make up for the deficiency of rice than you'd typically see in a Buddha bowl.
I think there's a disconnect where people don't comprehend how poor rice is in so many things. In practice difficult to make up for rice without something very nutrient dense, like meat or a combination of tofu and mushrooms.

Unfortuanately a lot of vegans are on the appeal to nature train, and are anti-supplement, or at most supplement B-12. A multivitamin would help a lot of people make meal planning easier and more flexible.

Though there's also the problem with coffee and other foods inhibiting nutrient absorption from multivitamins.

People need to be aware of issues with coffee and tea. Incidentally, it apparently improves absorption of B-12.

What's more, vitamin C taken with B12 in the form of a supplement likely inhibits B12 absorption. If the supplement contains a large dose (like 1000 mcg) it probably wouldn't negatively affect the person. The multivitamin I'm currently taking only has 6mcg of B12, which is far below the RDA for supplements, so I take an additional B12 supplement about an hour after I take my multi.

Very large doses of vitamin c.
https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-b12-vegan-sources/#multi

Vegan marketed multis like Deva typically have larger doses in the 100 mcg range. Few vitamins have that much C in them.

For your multi, given the low dose, it makes sense to take a separate B-12 as you are. 25 mcg or more is recommended in a multi. 100 mcg is better for assurance, since some multivitamins dissolve poorly. Taking it on its own you're probably fine with 25 mcg.

[carnap]

Carnap, the fallacy is "appeal to unqualified authority", "appeal to [any] authority" isn't broadly recognized as fallacious, but sensible practice on empirical matters.

"Appeal to authority" (argumentum ad verecundiam) is a well known fallacy, an appeal to a false authority is just a special case of it. But whether or not an "appeal to authority" amounts to a fallacy depends on the context of use, if you're referring to an authority to avoid addressing evidence or a discussion then that is clearly fallacious and that is what occurred here.

It's particularly important in science, because the body of knowledge is so deep and complex that the interpretation of experts, and particularly a broad array of experts, is much more meaningful than that of a layman.

On the contrary, its poisonous in science because science doesn't operate on authority but rather evidence. Every aspect of science is up for revision despite the number of people that support it, as such appeals to authority do little but thwart scientific progress and there is a long history of that occurring.

In the case of "layman", an appeal to authority would only make sense if there is agreement that the source represents a reliable and credible source on the topic. If there is disagree on the source then insisting that your position is correct because "X says so" results in a fallacious argument.

Lay Vegan is correct: the burden of proof is on you if you want to argue against consensus of professionals.

As I asked before, the burden of what exactly? I've discussed the lack of research, to demonstrate a negative here is rather difficult so the burden should really be on those that make the claim.

I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus of professionals" as the term "professional" typically extends to non-scientists. Its only the consensus of scientists that would be relevant here but such a conscious wasn't cited by Lay Vegan. Rather Lay Vegan cited the position of a handful of trade groups which aren't an authority on matters of science in the first place. You can claim that their "position" is evidence-based but that is a far cry from it representing a consensus.

So as I said earlier, its actually an appeal to false authority because the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics doesn't represent the scientific community but rather a trade.

So what reason is there to believe there is a scientific consensus on vegan diets? As far as I'm aware the world's top nutritional scientists and biologists haven't endorsed any position on vegan diets. Citing such a consensus as a piece of evidence would be just fine, but to refer to it as an argument against a specific objection would still be fallacious.

A trade group of experts with pretty extensive scientific education in nutrition.

Experts in what exactly? Dietetics....not science. While I'm sure there are some members that are scientists with extensive backgrounds the vast majority of members aren't scientists but instead dietitians. And since this the governing body for dietetics, its this group that actually defines what it means to be a dietitian. So they are experts in the very trade they've created and regulate.

And professionals disagree. Either you're smarter than they are, know something they don't, or they're engaged in a conspiracy for some reason.

Again..."professionals" could mean anything really. But there are "professionals" that are skeptical of vegan diets, there are even large nutrition groups that are skeptical. The German Society of Nutrition doesn't recommend vegan diets for children and pregnancy and recommends caution for adults.

And there is no need to think you're smarter or build some conspiracy theory, scientists frequently hold conflicting views on topics.

People with good "vegan" genes may be able to eat well under the RDI (and we see that reflected in the broad range of nutrient requirements that research shows when we study what human needs are for different vitamins and minerals) and be healthy due to better absorption or conversion of different nutrients.

There is a major flaw in what you're discussing here, namely, the RDI for nutrients were established by researching people eating omnivorous diets and that is precisely the issue. We lack similar research on vegan diets and therefore we don't know whether the RDI would be the same for vegans and there is considerable debate on these topics. For example many recommend that vegetarians may require higher intakes of both iron and zinc due to the lower bioavailability of these nutrients in plant-foods. Even protein requirements are likely to be higher for vegans due to the lower quality and bio-availability of plant-based proteins. But we actually lack protein studies on vegans.

So how could there possibly be a scientific consensus on vegan diets when they haven't been heavily researched? In science one typically maintains a position of skepticism until there is sufficient evidence. I think the issue here is what people consider "sufficient evidence", for some the bar appears to be much lower than others.

However, the only argument that presents against going vegan (or near vegan) personally is if you believe you aren't capable of keeping track of your diet for a few days here and there and achieving adequate nutrition, and/or can not afford supplements.

There are many people that report doing poorly on vegan diets despite trying to track nutrients, etc.

You can buy and take lower dose supplements. You can also use a pill splitter on higher dose supplements or take less of a liquid.

I've actually not seen lower dose supplements and a pill splitter wouldn't help much because the dose would still end up high. The only lower
doses I've seen are in fortified foods or

You're going against consensus to claim that, as I explained.

Nobody here has established a scientific consensus, a position paper authored/reviewed by a handful of people from a trade group says nothing about consensus in a scientific community.

But if you're still not convinced, why not go ostrovegan to retain some animal products in the diet in line with a Mediterranean or Okinawan diet?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, you mean, why not go with a low meat diet instead of heavy meat diet? Rationally speaking, if someone roughly agreed with veganism but was skeptical about the diet than I think they would try to reduce intake. But psychologically that doesn't seem to happen and I think the vegan community is partly to blame, for example, look at all the hate vegetarians receive. When you push an all-or-nothing paradigm that will push people to the extremes.

1. Long term thinking, tastes change and you learn to enjoy new foods, so you're not really missing out on much (temporary sacrifice for long term gain)
2. When we look at the consequences of animal agriculture, it's hard to argue that more good than bad is coming out of it in any sense, even for humans.

I would agree, at least partially, but taste has genetic components as well and there seems to be something particularly appealing about meat.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

On the contrary, its poisonous in science because science doesn't operate on authority but rather evidence. Every aspect of science is up for revision despite the number of people that support it, as such appeals to authority do little but thwart scientific progress and there is a long history of that occurring.

Are there any examples of this in the last century (in the hard sciences)?

I don’t think the long history of authority thwarting science tells us anything about their relationship in the modern scientific institution, especially because there hasn’t really been one until recently.

[carnap]

Are there any examples of this in the last century (in the hard sciences)?

Yes, quantum mechanics and general relativity. In both cases new observations couldn't be explained by existing theories that were well accepted.

I don’t think the long history of authority thwarting science tells us anything about their relationship in the modern scientific institution, especially because there hasn’t really been one until recently.

This is a hindsight bias, its not clear how "authority" is thwarting scientific progress because we don't know what the science of the future will look like. We only know that for the past and there are many examples of authority by scientists, government, mass opinion, etc having a negative impact on scientific discovery.

Due to human nature there is always a threat that existing science becomes dogmatic. I think ignoring the lessons of history make that ever more likely.

[brimstoneSalad]

"Appeal to authority" (argumentum ad verecundiam) is a well known fallacy,

It's not fallacious when it's a qualified authority and refers to the inductive probability of something being true, or the probability of somebody who disagrees with that qualified authority succumbing to the dunning-kruger effect.

if you're referring to an authority to avoid addressing evidence or a discussion then that is clearly fallacious and that is what occurred here.

Anybody on this forum is welcome to cite NASA as a means of debunking a Flat Earther without having to spend a week debating one.
That's basically what's occurring here.

Since threads like this ( viewtopic.php?t=1829 ), the guidelines here have changed.
We'll be working on an updated rules page to go over these guidelines and try to streamline the forum rules.

We want to promote debate without getting bogged down in dead-end assertion showdowns.

It's particularly important in science, because the body of knowledge is so deep and complex that the interpretation of experts, and particularly a broad array of experts, is much more meaningful than that of a layman.

On the contrary, its poisonous in science because science doesn't operate on authority but rather evidence.

Let me clarify: It's extremely important in the public understanding of science. Which includes places like this forum.

WITHIN a field of science, consensus and appeal to authority means less because the people having these discussions have the prerequisite knowledge to participate in them.

IF and when consensus changes, that's the time for the laity to update their actions in accordance.

In the case of "layman", an appeal to authority would only make sense if there is agreement that the source represents a reliable and credible source on the topic. If there is disagree on the source then insisting that your position is correct because "X says so" results in a fallacious argument.

A Flat-Earther can always disagree that NASA is a credible source because of the global conspiracy.

That doesn't oblige us to argue the point for a week (like I did before) when that's not a serious contention among most people.

Dietetic organizations are considered credible sources, if you disagree then you're welcome to start a thread arguing that specifically (if anybody wants to argue it), but it's not productive to bring it up in every thread that touches on nutrition (I'm hoping that will not happen, but it's quite off topic here).

We try to contain specific arguments or points of disagreement.
The updated rules section should be more clear on this.

As I asked before, the burden of what exactly? I've discussed the lack of research, to demonstrate a negative here is rather difficult so the burden should really be on those that make the claim.

Anybody can assert that there's no proof (or not enough evidence) for something, from a Young Earth Creationist to a Flat-Earther. That holds as much weight as the counter-assertion that there is enough proof. That's an impasse. Likewise an atheist's vs. theist's assertions about a god.

We are not obligated to dig up evidence to counter your assertion just because you disbelieve.

If professional and scientific consensus seems to be that something is the case, we can presume they have concluded that there's enough evidence for it; that DOES hold more weight than a mere assertion. As such, if you're going to argue against that you ARE obligated to provide some comparable evidence.

If you don't think you can demonstrate a negative here, your only recourse would be to make a strong argument for why those organizations are not credible... which at best brings us back to an impasse.

You're just going to have to accept that we accept scientific and professional consensus on vegan diets from organizations like the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics in the same way we believe NASA that the Earth is not flat.

The Semantics of whether you call them "scientific" organizations or not is irrelevant; these represent large numbers of appropriately educated individuals in the subject matter, which is a relatively hard science with concrete and observable effects on our immediate reality.

Rather Lay Vegan cited the position of a handful of trade groups which aren't an authority on matters of science in the first place. You can claim that their "position" is evidence-based but that is a far cry from it representing a consensus.

We disagree. They are as much of an authority on dietetics and nutrition as there is. Governmental organizations like the USDA express a similar position in myplate (although without acknowledging environmental benefits), despite the pro-animal ag biases of the organization as a whole (which would suggest the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is MORE credible than they are on this topic, not less).

So as I said earlier, its actually an appeal to false authority because the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics doesn't represent the scientific community but rather a trade.

And NASA represents the trade of space exploration, so it's not a scientific authority on the shape of the Earth.
Come on now.

Citing such a consensus as a piece of evidence would be just fine, but to refer to it as an argument against a specific objection would still be fallacious.

Your objection is not only without evidence, but you admitted you can not provide evidence for it ("proving a negative").
An assertion is an adequate answer to an assertion; if it doesn't convince you, fine, don't be personally convinced if you don't want to be.
Citing anything beyond that (like the Academy's consensus) IS evidence. Unless you can answer with something equal or greater, the appropriate response is to let it go until you have some evidence. Unless you want to start a new thread criticizing the Academy & USDA etc.

Experts in what exactly? Dietetics....not science. While I'm sure there are some members that are scientists with extensive backgrounds the vast majority of members aren't scientists but instead dietitians.

What do you think a scientist is, exactly?

Dietitians have the appropriate scientific education to read and interpret information on nutrition. Some of them are actively involved in research, but being so isn't required to understand the research and work of others.

If you want to argue about this, please start another thread on it and keep it there.

But there are "professionals" that are skeptical of vegan diets, there are even large nutrition groups that are skeptical. The German Society of Nutrition doesn't recommend vegan diets for children and pregnancy and recommends caution for adults.

You've cherry picked them a few times. They're the odd ones out, but if you'll READ the document, they discuss specific situations in Germany.

More in it here:
wiki/index.php/Adequate_Nutrition

Critics may also Cherry-pick the DGE (German Nutrition Society) which released a more critically worded 2016 position paper[3], ignoring the fact that the recommendations are focused on sensitive groups within the context of German culture and food availability: for example, in Germany (due to ill-conceived EU regulations on organic labeling) the overwhelming majority of vegan substitutes like plant milks are not properly fortified with well studied vitamins and minerals, but with unusual forms of plant extracts (See discussion in comments[4]). The position does not state that a vegan diet is inherently inadequate or unhealthy, and to the contrary outlines specifically HOW to get the necessary nutrients in table 2: Potential critical nutrients in a vegan diet and vegetable nutrient sources. The general sentiment of the position paper is that they do not believe that people are competent, and it is necessary that fortified foods and vegan specialty foods and supplements be more reliable and widely available to reduce risk of inadequate nutritional status on a population level. The tendency of German vegans to favor organic and want to avoid all supplements seems also to be a major concern.

I'm sympathetic to their concerns, they're looking out for adequate nutrition (and they discuss how to do it), but even their cautions don't justify your extreme skepticism on this topic.
I would also be inclined to recommend anybody feeding a baby vegan talk to a dietitian.

For example many recommend that vegetarians may require higher intakes of both iron and zinc due to the lower bioavailability of these nutrients in plant-foods. Even protein requirements are likely to be higher for vegans due to the lower quality and bio-availability of plant-based proteins. But we actually lack protein studies on vegans.

And vegan dietitians make recommendations in line with this already, despite limited evidence that needs for iron and zinc are really higher than what people typically consume. Recommendations are very conservative.

So how could there possibly be a scientific consensus on vegan diets when they haven't been heavily researched? In science one typically maintains a position of skepticism until there is sufficient evidence. I think the issue here is what people consider "sufficient evidence", for some the bar appears to be much lower than others.

Professionals and governmental organizations think there's sufficient evidence. Not to recommend strongly FOR a vegan diet, but to say it's fine if properly planned.
The assertions to the contrary from non-experts don't mean much.

There are many people that report doing poorly on vegan diets despite trying to track nutrients, etc.

Many? Really?
I would like to see a single case study on that.

We know we have a lot of people quitting for social reasons or because they were eating legitimately crappy vegan diets, and then trying to rationalize it... look at Blaire White recently.

Unconfirmed anecdotes aren't good evidence against the consensus of professionals who help people with nutritional issues for a living.

You can buy and take lower dose supplements. You can also use a pill splitter on higher dose supplements or take less of a liquid.

I've actually not seen lower dose supplements and a pill splitter wouldn't help much because the dose would still end up high. The only lower
doses I've seen are in fortified foods or

Most multis have lower dose, but this one is designed for vegans:

https://www.vegansociety.com/shop/veg-1-supplements

Also, look for liquids: the dosage is usually 1ml or more. Divide it by 20 for one drop. It's pretty easy to get a lower dose. You can also transfer it to another bottle and dilute it if you want an even lower dose. A little distilled water isn't going to hurt your B-12.

Rationally speaking, if someone roughly agreed with veganism but was skeptical about the diet than I think they would try to reduce intake. But psychologically that doesn't seem to happen and I think the vegan community is partly to blame, for example, look at all the hate vegetarians receive. When you push an all-or-nothing paradigm that will push people to the extremes.

I understand the psychology, which is why we should be promoting reducetarianism and other options like ostroveganism.

There's also the aspect where people feel like hypocrites for doing a *little bit* of something they understand to be wrong, so it's easier just to rationalize it and decide it's not wrong. That's where ostroveganism has an advantage over reducetarianism.

I would agree, at least partially, but taste has genetic components as well and there seems to be something particularly appealing about meat.

Something also true about umami-heavy seasonings and mock meats.
And now we have the impossible burger too if people want that rich heme taste of red meat.