Re: A discussion on TFES forum
Posted: Tue May 31, 2016 1:42 pm
Your biology teachers are not registered dietitians; they are not educated in the subject, and are no more qualified to advise you on diet than they are to perform open heart surgery.teo123 wrote:I don't know. Veganism is quite contrary to what we are told in school in biology classes about healthy diets. And we are bombarded from the media with the statements about milk, eggs and honey being healthy.
Doctors can prescribe medicines and perform surgeries (depending on their experience), they usually are not qualified to give diet advice.
Registered Dieticians (in the U.S., Canada, and some of Europe) are qualified to offer diet advice, but not prescribe medication or perform surgeries.
Biology teachers are not qualified to do either -- they have very minimal education on basic biology (animals, plants, etc.), and none on human medicine or dietetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietitian
You need to learn which people are qualified to give advice on which topics.
You trust a mechanic when it comes to your car, but not when it comes to gardening.
Different people have different sets of knowledge and experience, and you need to stop assuming people have more personal credibility than they do. When your biology teacher speaks on diet, he or she is speaking out of his or her ass on topics he or she is not qualified to speak on.
When your biology teacher assumes he or she knows anything about human nutrition, he or she is making the same mistake YOU made when you assumed you understood physics enough to surmise the shape of the Earth on your own. Arrogance is a common quality of ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Your teachers are not immune. To the contrary, they're probably even more full of themselves because they're in positions of authority.
The Media is not even remotely credible -- it's politics, not science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Science journalism is the worst, and nutrition reporting is terrible, because you're dealing with journalists who are both too ignorant to understand what they're reporting (they are as bad at reading as you are), and on top of that exaggerate to sell more papers/magazines/get more views.
Take your nutrition advice from credible Western registered dieticians:
http://veganhealth.org/
http://www.theveganrd.com/
Two registered dietitians who specialize in offering advice to vegans.
No. It means they're stupid and greedy. Yellow journalism is a transparent problem if you spend any time fact checking.teo123 wrote:If they weren't, wouldn't that have to be a conspiracy?
If you read the actual research papers many of these journalists cite, the scientists who did the work do not say the same things the journalists say,
Read this article for a good example:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/is-butter-really-back/
Researchers are constantly complaining about how journalists are misreporting on them and misrepresenting the studies they do.
We saw the same thing with the yellow journalism on "bacon better than lettuce for the environment" and "Vegetarianism causes mutations and cancer" bullshit. There are threads on these here on this forum. It was bad journalism, extremely ignorant.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2082
If you just want to be seen as "normal" and you want to eat cheese because you can't be bothered to sacrifice a little taste in order to do the right thing, don't make other excuses for it by trying to claim veganism is unhealthy.teo123 wrote:And while vegetarianism is accepted in the culture, veganism isn't. If I go vegan, I will be the only vegan I know, just like I was the only flat-earther I knew, but I do know a few other vegetarians. And, to be honest, I may just like my cheese too much to go vegan.
As long as you supplement B12 and eat properly, veganism is perfectly adequate.
Did you miss my last post where I talked about B12?
As discussed here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=801&start=20#p22078
If you can't find supplements (which are better), you could eat oysters which are probably not sentient, if your parents insist you eat some animal products.
Are you an expert in animal psychology, so know these animals are happy and well cared for, or are you guessing to make excuses for yourself?teo123 wrote:By the way, we don't buy milk and eggs from factory farms, but from the people in our and nearby villages, so we can be pretty certain that the animals aren't debeaked, kept in the small cages and abused in the way you say they are (except, of course, sent to the slaughterhouses when they are older).
Have you visited the farms in a surprise inspection to confirm all of this, rather than a guided tour where they show you the cleanest places and best cared for animals?
They aren't sent to be killed when they're old: they're sent quite young, as soon as egg and milk production drops, and for the male calves even younger to become veal, and for male chicks killed at birth.
Because people eat the milk and eggs, as explained multiple times, the killing will continue and produce cheaper meat which will increase demand for meat (which is higher at that lower price). Even if people didn't eat it, they'd still kill these animals because they don't want to waste money feeding them and caring for them once they don't produce anymore.
Dairy and egg are responsible for enormous amounts of animal suffering too. Less than meat? Slightly. But still very large.
Dairy and egg are also not good for you. There's no reason you should be eating all of that saturated fat and cholesterol. Oysters are probably a better source of B12 if you think you must eat animal products.
You apparently have no idea how to read. Vegans were not represented in large enough numbers in the study to make a conclusion. They could have had as low as a 0.7. Not enough data means not enough data, not "take a guess and your guess is right".teo123 wrote:I was referring to the metastudy mentioned on Wikipedia.
A 1999 metastudy combined data from five studies from western countries. The metastudy reported mortality ratios, where lower numbers indicated fewer deaths, for fish eaters to be 0.82, vegetarians to be 0.84, occasional meat eaters (eat meat less than once per week) to be 0.84. Regular meat eaters had the base mortality rate of 1.0, while the number for vegans was very uncertain (anywhere between 0.7 and 1.44) due to too few data points. The study reported the numbers of deaths in each category, and expected error ranges for each ratio, and adjustments made to the data. However, the "lower mortality was due largely to the relatively low prevalence of smoking in these [vegetarian] cohorts". Out of the major causes of death studied, only one difference in mortality rate was attributed to the difference in diet, as the conclusion states: "...vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease than non-vegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism#Longevity
Norris has an article on the topic examining MANY studies: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/dxrates
There just have not been many studies looking at vegans, because there aren't many vegans. But we know that vegans can get all of their nutrients, and there's no evidence that we live shorter or less healthy lives than others.
This is the conclusion of an expert after extensive research, echoed by other experts after extensive research. You are neither an expert, nor have you done extensive research, nor can you even properly read research or understand their actual conclusions. You are not qualified to draw your own conclusions on these topics. You should trust experts in the field (not auto mechanics or school teachers or journalists).Jack Norris wrote:Conclusion
In summary, not enough is yet known about vegan mortality to draw any conclusions other than that vegans do not have unusually high rates of mortality and they probably do better than the average person due either to diet or a healthier lifestyle.
Stop trying to draw your own conclusions. You're very bad at it. Your teachers aren't better at it either; you can't trust them except on their particular subjects of expertise (none of whom have experience in nutrition or are registered dietitians).
It's from the ADA.teo123 wrote:Why do you think that's reliable?
teo123 wrote:I don't know now. Why aren't those credible sources?
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... m/veganism
Can you read? It says associated with: that's not causal. A vegan diet doesn't cause these things, a poor vegan diet can (just as a poor non-vegan diet can).medical-dictionary wrote:Cons
Veganism may be associated with deficiencies in vitamin B12, as well as vitamin B6, riboflavin, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, calcium, zinc, iron, iodine and trace minerals, especially in periods of growth (e.g., during childhood, pregnancy or lactation). The high-fibre vegan diet reduces absorption of essential cations by chelating calcium, zinc, iron and trace minerals.
If you don't take B12, you will become B12 deficient.
If you don't go in the sun or take vitamin D, you will become D deficient (milk is fortified, usually -- it has man made vitamin D added).
The others are issues of just eating a proper diet and enough beans and nuts/seeds.
If you use cronometer, and follow expert advice on planning your diet, you will have none of these problems.
Iodine deficiency is usually caused by eating non-iodized salt instead of iodized salt. Some vegans are crazy and are afraid of iodized salt.
With proper planning, you can get all of the PROs with none of the cons.
What is it that makes you incapable of reading a couple pages before jumping to conclusions of your own?
Read the fucking article.
That's all you read, right?ajcn wrote:Micronutrients of special concern for the
vegan include vitamins B-12 and D, calcium, and long-chain n–3
(omega-3) fatty acids. Unless vegans regularly consume foods that
are fortified with these nutrients, appropriate supplements should be
consumed.
Did you read this?
Also read their recommendations. It's not hard. This is a very positive conclusion about veganism. How you took anything else away from this I don't know.ajcn wrote:SUMMARY
Vegans are thinner, have lower serum cholesterol and blood
pressure, and enjoy a lower risk of CVD. BMD and the risk of
bone fracture may be a concern when there is an inadequate
intake of calcium and vitamin D. Where available, calcium- and
vitamin D–fortified foods should be regularly consumed. There
is a need for more studies on the relation between vegan diets
and risk of cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis. Vitamin B-12
deficiency is a potential problem for vegans, so that the use of
vitamin B-12–fortified foods or supplements are essential. To
optimize the n–3 fatty acid status of vegans, foods rich in ALA,
DHA-fortified foods, or DHA supplements should be regularly
consumed. Vegans generally have an adequate iron intake and do
not experience anemia more frequently than others. Typically,
vegans can avoid nutritional problems if appropriate food choices
are made. Their health status appears to be at least as good as
other vegetarians, such as lactoovovegetarians. (Other articles in
this supplement to the Journal include references 83–109.)
That is what they said, if you would read it carefully. They defined vegetarian diets as including total vegetarian, or vegan diets.teo123 wrote:Does the same go for the vegan diets?A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients.
Yes, the same goes for vegan diets.
You need B12. And if you don't take D, you need some sunlight. You should make sure to get Omega 3 from walnuts or flax (or chia or hemp if you have it). You can also easily supplement on calcium. If you don't have plant milks, you can use a calcium based antacid.
The B12 supplements are made from bacteria.teo123 wrote:Probably not. They think that natural equals better.
Tell them something like: "All B12 is made from bacteria, which are natural, meat contains B12 because animals eat feces full of bacteria, or have enteric fermentation. In the past human ancestors could get some B12 from living in a dirty environment and drinking contaminated water and eating dirty food which is rich in B12, but today we live in a clean environment with less bacteria, and eat clean food, so we need to supplement."
That convinces some people. In reality, our ancestors also ate feces... but maybe don't mention that.
If not, and they still won't buy you supplements, then I'm sure somebody will send you some if you can't find any yourself. B12 is very cheap.
They should have antacid tablets made with calcium carbonate.teo123 wrote:No.do they not have soymilk at your store?
Take one a day with orange juice (or with an orange).
Some orange juice is also fortified with calcium, in which case just drink that and skip the antacid.
Because they don't want to pay to feed them after they stop producing. And they don't want to pay to raise the male chicks or bulls when they don't get anything from them. They're mouths to feed, and that costs money. They will always kill them as soon as they stop producing enough milk and eggs to make it commercially viable, and males will be killed as babies.teo123 wrote:And why would they slaughter them if nobody ate meat?
Behavior. How do you know your parents love you? How do you know human parents love their children?teo123 wrote:How do we know that?
You need to be a little less skeptical of others' behavior. Animals are not pretending to love their children, and they aren't intelligent enough to care about or understand evolution as a reason to behave that way (neither are most humans).
teo123 wrote:I meant, the food itself would be more expensive because there would be less customers.
You need to stop thinking you understand things. You don't understand economics.The fewer people want to buy something, and the larger the supply of that thing, the cheaper it gets.
Supply and demand is like this: Price = Demand / Supply
Bigger supply with the same demand means a lower price. Lower demand with the same supply means a lower price.
Do you think at all before you type? What's wrong with you? How did you get all of this precisely backward?teo123 wrote:If we stop eating eggs and milk, they won't be customers of food any more, so the price of food is going to go higher, for the same reason as the price of gold or oil is high.
Gold and oil are not expensive because nobody wants to buy them and there's too much available. They're expensive because many people want them and there's a limited availability.
If there was suddenly twice as much oil available, the price would fall drastically.
