×
all 180 comments

[–][deleted] 87 points88 points  (9 children)

Well done. Cholesterol has no correlation to heart problems which is 100% true. Sugar does. Here, take a 🍤 shrimp :)

[–]Tigrrr 21 points22 points  (0 children)

And seed oils (omega 6).

[–]I_just_have_a_life 1 point2 points  (2 children)

No correlation or no causation or both?

[–]DizzlesCMV 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Could you elaborate on that? To me common sense would dictate that cholestrol causes your heart to have to work harder and clog up faster.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your liver produces bad cholesterol when you get too much sugar and saturated fat in your diet. Not total cholesterol from food or "good cholesterol."

eat too much sugar from cake, donuts, candy, white breads, pasta and high amounts of saturated fat from cheese and fatty milk will increase bad cholesterol. Sat fat and sugar is turned into bad cholesterol by your liver.

Not the total cholesterol in the food itself that is good cholesterol and helps break down bad cholesterol in your body.

I have high bad cholesterol which is hereditary but also because I used to eat cheese on top of cheese on top of white bread and pasta, fatty bacon all the time on top of milk shakes and cream in coffee all day to make it worse. I was getting a very high amount of sugar and saturated fat which is the problem not the "cholesterol" in what i was eating. Now I eat mostly eggs, fish, chicken and lean beef and pork less, I eat dairy that's low in sat fat and only whole grains. Also do regular cardio exercise. Still cholesterol in my diet but far less sugar and saturated fat.

Hope that explains more.

[–]780lyds 38 points39 points  (7 children)

There is also a study which links being dairy free with shorter stature in children. https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/health/milk-children-height-study/index.html

[–]Johann_S_Mastropiero 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Love it

[–]vdgift 29 points30 points  (11 children)

Veganism does not make you unreliant on animal agriculture.

It also does not make you unreliant on animal suffering. There are many more wild animals killed to produce plant agriculture than there are livestock killed for consumption.

Another thing to note is that plant-based diets are heavily dependent on human suffering, unless the food is produced local to where it is bought. This is because many produce items are grown and packaged in second or third world countries where workers can be underpaid or forced to work or they work in substandard conditions.

Another big tip: organize the list by ethical, nutritional, environmental, and philosophical topics (with headlines). The way you bulleted all these ideas in one long list makes it look as if you just jotted down your thoughts as you had them.

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 10 points11 points  (3 children)

Thank you. Do you know a good source for the forced labor part?

[–]vdgift 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I learned about that watching Netflix’s Rotten. The examples I was thinking of are garlic from China and cane sugar from the Caribbean.

[–]LatchNessMonster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I saw that episode as well, but that’s garlic from China. The whole point of that episode was to show how their practices were screwing with the industry. So I wouldn’t say it’s fair to connect forced labor in China and garlic in and of itself because American garlic is grown, from what I understood, much more fairly.

[–]ferrettt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I learned that the slave industry started in sugar cane fields in Africa. Sugar was the first product of slavery.

[–]ishmaearth 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Not a vegan, but Why couldn’t we just advocate for locally grown food then, and the government could subsidize fresh produce better than it does now, and regardless of if we ate meat or not - we would all be healthier and less people would suffer.

[–]vdgift 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I do advocate for a localvore diet myself. I buy my meats and some produce from a local farmer’s market. But it is expensive and not realistic for the entire population.

[–]ishmaearth 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It’s only expensive because of what the government chooses to subsidize - it’s not like that in most countries - which is why every other developing country eats a plant based diet. It would be realistic to eat a plant based diet if the government wasn’t full of meat/dairy/cash crop lobbyists, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that we just accept that fresh local produce is unaffordable - it doesn’t have to be that way, vegan or not.

I’m new to this sub, but it seems like the energy spent arguing against veganism (which, yes, I agree that it’s not the most nutritional way to eat) could be spent arguing for affordable local, plant based food. I’ve spent some time abroad and I would say that the majority of developed countries (maybe not to much the UK and Germany) are eating much healthier/fresher than americans, when they’re supposed to be the richest country) but perhaps my problem is I’m just on the wrong sub

[–]vdgift 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think you underestimate the diversity of views in this sub. Not all of us believe in the superiority of eating local or organic. Not all of us believe that plant-based diets are healthy. Many of us are brand-loyal to nation-wide companies. Many of us are doing low-carb or strict carnivore diets specifically for the health benefits.

It’s not that we never discuss controversial topics here, but anti-veganism is the only ideology uniting us. You may want to go to other subs for posts on those topics.

[–]Neveah_Hope_Dreams 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I absolutely agree! Local is the best option.

[–]nemesis116 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the info. I am trying to educate myself on both sides. What is your source for the part regarding animal deaths being higher in plant agriculture vs animal agriculture?

[–]texasrigger 15 points16 points  (6 children)

Most livestock animals would not survive in the wild and thus wouldn't even exist if it weren't for agriculture.

Livestock animals wouldn't exist without agriculture as most are a product of heavy breeding but I wouldn't say they can't exist survive in the wild. There are many descendants of livestock living in the wild with populations of pigs, goats, cows, and horses all over the place.

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 22 points23 points  (3 children)

Good point, I'll remove that.

Edit: I just realized, arent't we (and also vegans) extremely dependant on beekeeping?

[–]texasrigger 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Yes absolutely. I've had the beekeeping discussions with vegans many times (I'm a beekeeper) and the number of misconceptions out there are mindboggling and it is really a topic unto itself but there are three common points of contention:

Feeding bees - feeding bees in the run up to spring (or any time there is a dearth) is not about replacing honey we stole from them, it's about maximizing brood production for the largest and strongest colony possible for a host of practical reasons. Also, they are not just given sugar water but also a pollen substitute.

Taking honey - pulling honey from hives is necessary for colony health as they will quickly produce more than they have space for in the spring and have more than they can defend in the rest of the year.

Cultivated bees vs natural pollinators - vegans will often argue that cultivated bees outcompete and pressure local pollinators who are often better at pollination. This is absolutely true. However, local pollinators dont and cant exist in large enough numbers to support modern agriculture's use of massive, seasonal monocultures. Some modern cultivated ag requires modern cultivated bees which require seasonal feeding and honey removal. It's a system unto itself which has no natural analog. If you are going to draw from the end product you have to accept the entire system.

[–]OldSonVic 6 points7 points  (1 child)

We are not, because bees do not pollinate grasses. Grass is wind-pollinated. Look it up. Grass-fed beef can exist without bees.

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the source. With "we" I didn't mean just meat, but a lot of food in the general sense.

[–]OldSonVic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Feeding livestock grains like corn, wheat, rye and legumes like soy, is a very modern, unnecessary concept. Ruminants can be naturally raised on grasses, which are wind-pollinated.

https://treesforlife.org.uk/into-the-forest/habitats-and-ecology/ecology/pollination/

[–]OldSonVic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is true for the highly cultivated plants they eat...hello?

[–]OldSonVic 16 points17 points  (4 children)

So sad this has to exist. Whatever happened to sanity? Why are vegans so hyper-emotional and illogical? Since when does anyone base their nutrition on emotions vs. science? Only in our modern culture could veganism be supported. I tried it in 2006, it did not last a month. Then there wasn’t the kind of junk food you can find these days for vegans, vegan cheese was nonexistent (still isn’t cheese). They are beyond pathetic, they are abhorrent.

[–]Selrisitai 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'd suggest that anyone who bases his diet on anything other than what is natural and naturally available is probably gonna have a hard time of it.
Though there's always some evidence-based elements of things. For instance, blood-letting apparently does have some value. Who knew?

[–]NaniGaHoshiiDesuKa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

blood-letting apparently does have some value. Who knew?

For real? damnn now I'm curious..tell me xD

[–]carissadraws 15 points16 points  (4 children)

Oh man I totally agree with vegan diets working for some people and not others. When I mentioned that in the debate a vegan sub they fucking lost a gasket and raged at me that they weren’t ‘doing the diet right’ and that veganism when done ‘correctly’ is good for EVERYONE.

Hell I even posted that the people in the r/keto sub are super okay with people trying keto and realizing it’s not for them cause they realize that not everyone’s bodies are suited for LCHF. But with being a vegan all of a sudden it’s ‘anyone can do it even if you have health conditions that need fat and protein veganism cures everything!’ 🙄 ugh give me a fucking break lol

[–]j4kk54h 0 points1 point  (2 children)

vegan diets cant work for anyone because humans are carnivores

[–]carissadraws 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Technically we’re omnivores but yeah I get your point.

One dude posted that a vegan diet made him sick and they picked apart his argument and thought he made it up 🙄

Someone said eating an omnivore diet made her sick so that meant being an omnivore was unhealthy. No you fucking idiot it means than an omnivore diet was not healthy for you specifically. Just like a vegan diet was unhealthy for him. So stop trying to force people to do diets that cause them medical harm!

Like I don’t get it, I’m not trying to force vegans to eat meat I just don’t want them to insinuate that everyone could be vegan if they really wanted to but ignoring the fact that people have conditions that make that assertion impossible!

[–]oliviared52 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Another one to add under health, if we were meant to be herbivores / it was healthier like many vegans claim, we would be the only herbivores on the planet that can’t digest cellulose

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This should be very clear when you consider there was never a recorded group of humans that could survive without animals. The only vegans I see argue with that are those that have sunken extremely deep into their mental illness.

There's also a lot of unique things about humans' digestion because we're the only ones that predigest their food by cooking.

[–]kolchak-the-elder 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I have wondered about the use of animal byproducts in fertilizer production..is it significant and because of this are vegans indirectly consuming an diet dependent on animal agriculture

[–]TexanLoneStarEx Cattle Rancher 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Great post. Veganism is not a diet, it's just malnutrition - it has nothing to do with health and when you dig deep into a vegan it usually is revealed that it's a moral dilemma for them. The supposed health benefits are just a way to justify this counter-intuitive fad eat disorder.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Or it's a cover for an eating disorder/restrictive eating.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Vegans also like to use the Fallacy Fallacy. When they point out a logical fallacy that you may have used they think that defeats the entire refutation/argument. It doesn’t.

Another tactic used is Reductio Ad Absurdum AKA Appeal to Extremes where they establish a claim by showing the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity. In most cases they don’t realize that works both ways against their Alien fantasies and cannibalism of the mentally challenged.

Red Herrings - Mentally disabled people and Aliens when referring to NTT. “It’s a trap”!

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (5 children)

With your point about Adventists, they're the ones who founded the American Dietetic Association, which is where most of the vegans I encounter cite as their proof.

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That's a nice one, lmao. I made some other updates aswell.

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I just saw that if you look at the authors of common studies that associate vegan diets with health, there is almost always someone that graduated or works at Loma Linda University, which is owned by the Seventh-day Adventists. (It even has a church on the campus)

When you then take a look at the publications of those authors, you can see that they almost exclusively produce studies that follow their religious code. They are either manipulating their results or refusing to publish outcomes that don't align with their beliefs.

Joan Sabate

Terry Butler

Larry Beeson

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Exactly, I've been saying this for a while now.

[–]ALexusOhHaiNyan 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Cripes man, I just learned now. That reeks of confirmation bias, hell institutional bias. I don't think enough people understand this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vegans simply don't care.

[–]teriyaki-udonRepented and saved. Baptized in clarified butter. 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Praise GOD. What an amazing piece of work you have here! I escaped veganism recently and treated myself to a brisket dinner just last night. After reading this copypasta, my meat-eating soul is saved forever. Thank you.

[–]Echoherb 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Change the first sentence to "Well - treated farm animals live better lives... "

[–]texasrigger 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Depending on the animal they may also live longer on average than their wild counterparts. I raise meat rabbits and in the wild those generally don't live to sexual maturity (which is why they reproduce - like rabbits) whereas mine are slaughtered right at (or very near) that point.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ingesting estrogen from cow’s milk (especially that tiny amount) does nothing to a human body. It’s just like drinking soy milk that has plant estrogen. It does nothing to a human because you wouldn’t process that in the same way as actual human estrogen. Vegans are so effing dumb.

[–]MagnificentCashew 6 points7 points  (1 child)

You should debate Vegan Gains on the ethical and health principles of veganism. Your clearly well read, and discussion with him you'd reach out to vegans, and just get them to think more critically.

[–]ALexusOhHaiNyan 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I can't get behind that. Gains seems like a legit sociopath, definitely a misanthrope and usually a troll. He's not in it to get to the bottom of things, he's in it for the views and income from that.

[–]salamanderoilSoybeans are people too! 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh it's beautiful.

[–]ALexusOhHaiNyan 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Wow. Fantastic stuff.

Maybe another non-reddit version with the links at the bottom footnote style? That way we could copy and paste anywhere.

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Might do that in the near future when there's not much more to add.

[–]ALexusOhHaiNyan 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Heck yeah, that'd be fantastic. Just found out about this one you might wanna add the Environment section.

https://qz.com/1774089/booze-and-sweets-not-meat-may-increase-your-carbon-footprint/

By that metric veganism is worse for the environment than eating meat and Vegans that like to party and eat out are the worst. Watch them logic leap out of that one.

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm at the reddit post character limit. What would be better, an uploaded .pdf or a pastebin.com link? Should the footnotes be at the bottom of the page or under each point?

[–]PirateSpokesmanRadical Omnivore 3 points4 points  (8 children)

Great job! One thing I didn’t see: the fact that so many field animals are killed each year for plant farming. Yet those deaths are seen as “acceptable” despite the obvious hypocrisy of such a stance.

Actually, I would also include a whole new section about the socioeconomic aspects of Veganism: that basically only wealthy people can afford to go vegan, and for most of the world, animal products are essential to their diets and livelihoods (and saying otherwise is, frankly, their privilege talking).

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Added.

[–]wolfho 1 point2 points  (6 children)

To be fair, most plant farms are for cattle if vegans could choose I'm sure they'd be in favor of farming with as little casualties as possible. But it's the livestock industry that sets the demand not vegans.

[–]PirateSpokesmanRadical Omnivore 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Thing is, if they were consistent about inflicting the least harm possible, that’d be one thing. Then I’d accept that argument. But the absolutism is what kills it — to them, eating beef from even one grass-fed, pasture-raised cow is unacceptable, yet hundreds of field mice and gophers getting sliced and crushed by the farm machinery harvesting their plants is acceptable (and this happens regardless of whether a plant farm grows plants for livestock or for humans).

As an example, a bunch of vegans recently picketed a local butcher that sources from said humane farms, and their argument was that killing any animal, for any reason, is always wrong. I pointed out this inconsistency to them, and it seemed to catch them off guard (for a second, anyway, before they started shouting).

[–]OldSonVic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Grass, as food for ruminant animals, is wind-pollinated, no bees required.

https://treesforlife.org.uk/into-the-forest/habitats-and-ecology/ecology/pollination/

[–]kayne2000 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Doing God's work my friend.

[–]holocaustofvegans 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My understanding is Okinawa's life span is falling in part because after the war they started eating more of the Japanese diet which includes more rice (carbohydrates) and sugary drinks (soda.)

They stopped eating as much of a wide balanced diet for nutrients (greens, goya, seaweed, roots, fresh fish, and the occasional shredded pig), and started eating more highly processed canned food, spam, rice/flour, and so forth. There are good things to be said of their old diet. They're a relatively more impoverished region of Japan, but at least there's less stress and the houses are cheaper.

They also have a custom of only eating until you're "8/10th full," which has prevented them from becoming as fat and developing those cardiovascular diseases. So vegans aren't completely wrong, but there are also other factors for why Okinawans had a long life.

[–]2FishBlue 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The document is wonderful. Just want to blab here about public safety on a daily basis that we all take for granted and which relies on animal products.

This was mentioned in vaccines for example, but I wanted to add some detail. I'm not a writer by any means, so this is a rambling thing and based on my working experiences in diagnostic pathology in medical technology.

In public safety for example, in daily living, public water has to be tested for coliforms which requires animal based nutrient media in petri dishes. In order to grow and speciate coliforms to do the 'counts', coliforms require nutrition to thrive in artificial situations, such as a laboratory. Here's a page that mentions a bit on this matter including the types of animal based nutrient used. https://catalog.hardydiagnostics.com/cp_prod/Content/hugo/mEndoLESAgar.htm

There are also PCR (DNA genogype testing) and these also require animal media for the technology. I usually chuckle when I read about vegans using DNA technology to report on food quality from 'vegan restaurants'. Those PCR tests are not vegan.

Public water is usually tested every two weeks, more or less, to be sure the water is safe to drink and bathe in. Even public surface water is tested. (lakes and rivers, etc) Here are some recent results for surface water testing. Color coding, red means it's really bad. Yellow is also unacceptible. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W5JdX6gx07uTsK_i_sFVXSftlNql-dLurXI4v3A9zKA/edit#gid=446055853

Some of the coliforms come from areas where homeless people encamp, don't have or don't care to use public toilets --- use sidewalks that drain into gutters or other run off. Some use buckets that are emptied which end up in surface water where people wade into the water, or boat and fish; children and their dogs swim. Not a good thing to have this degree of contamination going on while COVID-19 is spreading since poop can be infectious.

In hospital procedures, such as screening for strep throat, STIs, even OTC pregnancy tests from the drug store, lots of animal sourced material is used in the technology. Some animals such as sheep provide the blood that is used to check for hemolysis. https://www.pinterest.com/shaycsr/microbiology/

Outbreaks such as recalls of packaged food such as prewashed lettuce and other veggies... even food from a restaurant... remember water is used in the washing and packaging process -- a minute speck of infectious material can contaminate hundreds of packages. I've heard the arguments that it always comes from animal contamination. Nope. It doesn't have to come from animal poo or whatevers, At restaurants contamination in the improperly cleaned equipment, a batch of old food, or contamination from someone who handled cash or even an aerosol that enters the restaurant. Ice machines and self serve areas such as covered food or salad bars which often have scoopers where people use ungloved hands to scoop stuff out then replace the scooper back -- incubates disease as it contaminates. Most of us are not immune compromised, and bugs are everywhere. But when there is an outbreak, was it chlamydia, pseudomonas, or E. coli? The lab testing tells us which was the culprit so those who get sick can be treated more efficiently.

That vegan peanut butter couldn't exist without animal technology involved in the public safety of making the product that's found at Whole Foods.

Maybe bits of the above could be useful in the development of the well organized work you've done already. The vegan mindset of some of the population is utterly surreal if they imagine that that they can have a modern privileged lifestyle, clean water to drink and bathe in. They enjoy the convenience of food and supplement safety in those products they use in their "what I eat in a day" videos. Just not possible without use of animal products.

Get realistic. Support those sources that take good care of the critters we need in order to have our modern lifestyles. Sorry for the book! (edited to fix a few typos)

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That was very interesting, thank you for sharing. I can't add that much more since I'm running out of space, but I have extended the sentence about by-products a bit.

It's ironic seeing vegans blame livestock for the corona outbreak when they also rely on medicine from animal products to treat their diseases.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One thing I find ridiculous about vegan "philosophy" is how conditional animals' lives/rights are. "As much as practicable". Lol, imagine if human vs human ethics were that flimsy?

"Rape as few babies as is possible/practicable"

"Eat as few humans as is possible/practicable"

Fuck that. I think it's wrong to kill other people unless it's a consensual engagement (war, fighting) or self defense, no exceptions. Me being hungry doesn't suddenly eliminate another human's right to life.

But an animal had no rights to begin with so there's no issue eating them, "practicable" or otherwise.

[–]Tac0salesman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You did forget the uses of animal parts in our daily life

[–]reboooted 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A month late to this post, but thank you so much for putting all of this info together into one post. Vegans won't touch this.

[–]daddycoullOmnivore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is gold and exactly what I need to tackle the local vegan bull.

[–]Felipe705x 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Does anyone else think that industries and electricity producers are contributing to the spread of the vegan movement as a sort of distraction from the main cause (them) of global warming?

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

[–]Felipe705x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first link is absolute gold, thanks for the info 😄

[–]bearowsley 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Methane is wrong calculated: Very short half life -> no accumulation (120 GWP to 16 GWP*)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-019-0086-4

[–]Dr_Weil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Belgium has braincells

[–]RogueThief7Omnivore, not "meat eater" 2 points3 points  (1 child)

This is actually epic.

I've noticed two things lately:

  1. I am absolutely sick of vegan propaganda
  2. People generally don't want to read a lot of words, looking at pretty pictures is a lot more enjoyable and informative. I.e. A picture paints a thousand words

I think particularly on that second note, veganism, along with their propaganda, manipulation and bullying has seen a large amount of unexpected success due to the coincidental correlation between "artsy types" and veganism. What I'm saying is that veganism is having a larger impact than expected (despite blatantly lying nearly 100% of the time) because vegans churn out so many infographics, pictures and other relatively easily consumable media - as apposed to your glorious wall of well thought out, heavily cited text.

So anyway, let's jump to the pitch. I've been thinking recently that I need to make counter-propaganda that sets the record straight. I've been wanting to learn some infographic and image creation type skills for a while and I think this will be my excuse/motivation to learn.

OP, are you interested in collaborating to synthesise some of these facts into more infographic types of media? More widely, is anyone else interested in trying to distil some of these facts down into infographics and easily consumable (aesthetic) graphs?

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sure, I can hit you up with some ideas for infographics. I was considering making some myself, but my image creation skills end at memes.

[–]novagenesis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I got harassed today by a fairly rude vegan who apparently lurks on this sub, and tried to argue that ethical philosophers' consensus is that veganism is "correct/good" for most ethical systems. I'd love to see more details that rebuke that angle

Stuff like laymen's summaries of anti-vegan responses to ethical arguments that appeal to utilitarianism or deontology for veganism. Some summaries perhaps of Jan Narveson's arguments against veganism.

Specifically, I couldn't find any good articles that weren't on the vegan side of the issue, and know just enough about the underlying ethics to see (but not be able to argue) flaws in the pro-vegan conclusions.

[–]colourlessrainbow8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wish i found this sooner. I thought im the only one that noticed soy is grown for human consumption and then the waste is fed to livestock. More than 80 of bean is waste :) not whole plant :). And cattle is inneficient one huh.

You're a good man. Thank you.

[–]amadeusex72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dude that's serious work ... Kudos and thanks a lot for sharing.

[–]greyuniwave 2 points3 points  (6 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/328bpa/scrolls_and_tomes_against_the_indoctrinated/

I was walking in the Church Of The Indoctrinated and saw a thread by /u/samdasoo

. His sister is trying to go on an unsupplemented 80/10/10 vegan diet, and refuses to listen to anyone except T. Colin Campbell, a sorry excuse of a researcher and author of The China Study. So naturally he seeked help to reason with his sister.

I highlighted that Campbell is a vegan who lets his personal beliefs interfere with what little scientific integrity he has. I offered the work of Denise Minger and others in debunking The China Study. I listed some nutrients that veg*ans are more likely to be missing. And finally I warned him that diets high in carbohydrates and low in fat are dangerous, and his sister should include healthy oils in her diet.

Naturally, this did not sit well with a nearby Priest of Indoctrionation who took a lifelong oath of abstaining from animal flesh, and treehugging.

He pointed out that I am uninitiated and do not belong in the Church Of The Indoctrinated. He then accused me of foul necromancy and commanded me to reveal my scrolls and tomes. His priest brothers gathered around us and started to smite me.

I fled to save my undeath, and spent 3 days of my eternal death to collect our most prized scrolls and tomes to unleash upon the foolish priests, and to bring back the sister from death.

So, my dear lich and undead brethren, I present to you the fruits bacon of my 3-day search for spells against foolish priests, knight templars and evangelists.

If any of you expert necromancers deem that a scroll or tome should be included in the collection, or should be removed for fear of taint of religious dogma, or the spells should be better organized, please let me know.

I would especially value powerful magics for disspelling the dogmatic texts and practices of high carbohydrate, low fat diets, especially those advocated by Campbell, Ornish, and other elven druids forest trolls.


Deficiencies and health complications on veg*an diets

Vitamin B12:

  • Level of serum vitamin B12 is "always low in vegans". [1]
  • Vegans have low HDL, elevated homocysteine and lipoprotein(a) levels due to vitamin B12 deficiency. [1]

Vitamin D and Calcium:

  • High fiber diets reduce serum half life of vitamin D3. [1]
  • Vegans have lower bone mineral density due to lower calcium intake and vitamin D3 levels. [1] [2] [3]

Creatine:

  • Creatine supplementation improves memory in vegetarians but not omnivores, implying a deficiency state. [1] [2]
  • Vegetarians show lesser gains from resistance training. [1]

Omega 3 fatty acids:

  • Plasma EPA and DHA are lower in vegetarians and vegans regardless of duration of adherence to the diet. [1]
  • Omega 6:3 ratio is higher in vegan children. [1]
  • Men are less efficient at converting ALA into EPA and rely more on dietary sources. [1] [2] [3]

Carnitine:

  • Vegetarians also have low levels of carnitine and carnitine transport capacity due to low methionine and lysine intake. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Taurine:

  • Vegans have low serum levels of taurine due to low intake of taurine, cyst(e)ine, methionine, and vitamin B6. [1]

Advanced Glycation End-products:

  • Vegetarians have significantly higher levels of AGEs due to higher intake of fructose and lower intake of carnosine and beta alanine. [1]

Iodine:

  • Vegetarians are deficient in iodine due to low processed food and salt intake. [1] [2]

Coenzyme Q10:

  • "Indians appear to have low baseline serum coenzyme Q10 levels which may be due to vegetarian diets". [1]
  • Coenzyme Q10 is poorly water soluble and needs dietary fat for absorption. There has been several attempts to develop water soluble Coenzyme Q10 formulations. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Iron:

  • "The RDAs for vegetarians are 1.8 times higher than for people who eat meat. This is because heme iron from meat is more bioavailable than nonheme iron from plant-based foods, and meat, poultry, and seafood increase the absorption of nonheme iron." [1] [2]
  • Polyphenols and phytates can decrease absorption of nonheme iron. Wheat germ, aubergine, butter beans, spinach, brown lentils, beetroot greens, green lentils are sources of those. [1]
  • "Drinking tannin-containing beverages such as tea with meals may contribute to the pathogenesis of iron deficiency if the diet consists largely of vegetable foodstuffs." [1]
  • "Calcium might interfere with the absorption of iron, although this effect has not been definitively established. For this reason, some experts suggest that people take individual calcium and iron supplements at different times of the day." [1]

Vitamin A:

  • Vegan sources exclusively contain beta-carotene rather than preformed vitamin A. Conversion efficiency of beta-carotone to retinal is dependent on BCMO1 gene status. There are cases of beta-carotene buildup and vitamin A deficiency. [1] [2]

Vitamin K2:

  • Natto is the only known vegan source of vitamin K2 (MK7).
  • Conversion of vitamin K1 into vitamin K2 (MK4) seems to be imperfect due to different deficiency profiles and depends on hormonal status.
  • Postmenopausal and elderly women have a higher risk of vitamin K2 deficiency. [1]
  • Vitamin K2, but not vitamin K1, intake helps against coronary heart disease and aortic calcification. [1] [2] [3]
  • Vitamin D supplementation might require cosupplementation of K2. [1]

Endocrine changes:

  • Vegans have higher SHBG. High levels of SHBG are associated with hyperthyroidism, cirrhosis, anorexia nervosa, and hormonal changes. [1]
  • Vegetarians have lower sperm count. [1] [2]
  • Vegetarians have lower testosterone. [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • "Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters, but this was offset by higher sex hormone binding globulin, and there were no differences between diet groups in free testosterone, androstanediol glucuronide or luteinizing hormone." [1]
  • Case report on loss of libido and erectile dysfunction on a soy-rich vegan-style diet. Hormones were normalized 1 year after cessation of the diet. [1]

Child development:

  • Children who are raised on strict vegan diets do not grow normally. [1] [2]
  • Children develop rickets after prolonged periods of strict vegetarian diets. [1]
  • "There are some links between vegetarians and lower birthweight and earlier labour". [1]
  • Effects of vitamin B12 and folate deficiency on brain development in children. [1]
  • "Particular attention should be paid to adequate protein intake and sources of essential fatty acids, iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamins B12 and D. Supplementation may be required in cases of strict vegetarian diets with no intake of any animal products." [1]

[–]greyuniwave 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Case studies on child development:

  • Cerebral atrophy in a vitamin B12-deficient infant of a vegetarian mother. [1]
  • Severe megaloblastic anemia in child breast fed by a vegetarian mother. [1]
  • Consequences of exclusive breast-feeding in vegan mother newborn - case report. [1]
  • Nutritional vitamin B12 deficiency in a breast-fed infant of a vegan-diet mother. [1]
  • "We report the case of a 7 month-old girl that presented with acute anemia, generalized muscular hypotonia and failure to thrive. Laboratory evaluation revealed cobalamin deficiency, due to a vegan diet of the mother." [1]
  • Et cetera, there are plenty of irresponsible veg*an mothers.

Choline, phosphatidylcholine, and phosphatidylserine:

  • I could not find any studies comparing choline intake or rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease of veg*ans and omnivores. However it stands to reason that their average intake is lower due to plants being a poorer source of choline than eggs, fish, liver, and meat in general. People suffering from trimethylaminuria often become vegetarians to decrease their intake of choline. It is possible to get RDA values from plants, but it requires planning.
  • Dietary requirements can vary greatly depending on gender, pregnancy, breastfeeding, and PEMT gene status, specifically on the rs7946 SNP. Substances like trimethylglycine, methylcobalamin, methylfolate, and other methyl donors can partly substitute choline for methylation purposes, but not for phospholipid synthesis. Which brings us to the next point.
  • Choline needs to be attached to fatty acids in the form of Phosphatidylcholine to be incorporated into membranes. Most notably, neural membranes love DHA bound Phosphatidylcholine and Phosphatidylserine, but there are plenty of other fatty acids present in the brain, saturated, monounsaturated, and omega 3 or 6 polyunsaturated alike. [1]
  • As we have seen previously, vegans lack at least EPA and DHA. Those on very low fat diets might lack other fatty acids as well. I highly doubt de novo lipogenesis produces the same fatty acid profile as a well balanced diet, but I would love to see a study on it. A different fatty acid profile could potentially change brain phospholipid composition. However it is doubtful that we will ever see a study on the differences of veg*an and omnivore brain phospholipid composition.

Cholesterol:

  • Cholesterol is used for numerous important processes in the body: cell membrane integrity and fluidity regulation (again, special emphasis on neural membranes) and synthesis of vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, sexual hormones, mineralocorticoids, and glucocorticoids, all of which have relevance to brain function.
  • I therefore hypothesize that decreased cholesterol production on vegan or low fat diets could at least partly explain the changes in vitamin D, coenzyme Q10, and hormonal status. If this is true, it could imply changes in brain function as well. Parallel this to the side effect profile of statins.

Conclusion:

Unsupplemented, unplanned, low fat veg*an diets are foolish.

Problems with high carb low fat diets

  • A diet very close to 80/10/10 markedly decreases brain glucose utilization in rats. "Even marginal protein dietary deficiency, when coupled with a carbohydrate-rich diet, depresses cerebral glucose utilization to a degree often seen in metabolic encephalopathies." [1]
  • Very low fat diets can cause gallstones due to reduced gallbladder emptying, whereas high fat diets are protective [1] [2] [3]
  • High carb low fat diets reduce LDL particle size. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
  • High carb low fat diets decrease HDL. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
  • Carbohydrates, especially fructose, increase triglycerides. [1] [2] [3]
  • Low fat diets do not reduce heart disease despite changes in lifestyle or weight loss due to forced calorie restriction. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
  • Carbohydrates increase VLDL concentrations and decrease HDL cholesterol. [1]
  • "In this paper, we highlight how an excess of dietary carbohydrates, particularly fructose, alongside a relative deficiency in dietary fats and cholesterol, may lead to the development of Alzheimer's disease." [1]
  • "In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression." [1]
  • "In our studies of simple hypercholesterolemia in men, a fat intake <25% of energy and a carbohydrate intake >60% of energy was associated with a sustained increase in triacylglycerol of 40%, a decrease in HDL cholesterol of 3.5%, and no further decrease in LDL in comparison with higher fat intakes." [1]
  • Carbohydrates stimulate appetite. [1]
  • There are entire neural circuits responsible for compulsive sugar (and carbohydrate) consumption. [1]
  • "25% kcal [...] fructose/glucose-fed females experience a twofold increase in mortality while fructose/glucose-fed males control 26% fewer territories and produce 25% less offspring. [...] Clinical defects of fructose/glucose-fed mice were decreased glucose clearance and increased fasting cholesterol." [1]
  • "The plasma glucose area above the baseline following a glucose meal was reduced 34% when protein was given with the glucose." Guess what happens when that protein is missing. [1]
  • Swings in blood glucose makes you more impulsive [1]
  • Carbohydrates display abuse potential [1]
  • "The results show that dietary and plasma saturated fat are not related, and that increasing dietary carbohydrate across a range of intakes promotes incremental increases in plasma palmitoleic acid, a biomarker consistently associated with adverse health outcomes." [1]
  • "We observed a significant relationship between added sugar consumption and increased risk for CVD mortality." [1]
  • Replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates increases small, dense LDL particles, shifts to an overall atherogenic lipid profile, and increases incidence of diabetes and obesity. Replacing saturated fat with omega 6 polyunsaturated fats increases risk of cancer, increases risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular events, and death to heart disease and overall mortality, increases oxidized LDL-C, reduces HDL-C. [1]
  • Low fat diets increase susceptibility to obesity and leptin resistance. [1]
  • Feeding bananas to chimpanzees increase aggression. [1]
  • Low fat diets significantly reduce testosterone. [1] [2]

Conclusion:

High carbohydrate, low fat diets are foolish.

[–]greyuniwave 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Debunking the lipid hypothesis

  • Egg consumption improves lipid profile, blood pressure, and reduces risk for cardiovascular mortality and diabetes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
  • "A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat." [1] [2]
  • Recommendations of the American Heart Association from 1982 are based on misinterpretation, obsolete science, and arbitrary choices without explanation. [1] [2]
  • "The mainstream hypothesis that LDL cholesterol drives atherosclerosis may have been falsified by non-invasive imaging of coronary artery plaque burden and progression." [1]
  • "Cholesterol does not cause coronary heart disease in contrast to stress." [1]
  • "The fallacies of the lipid hypothesis." [1]
  • Low cholesterol is a risk factor for in-hospital mortality. [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • "Dietary cholesterol reduces circulating levels of small, dense LDL particles, a well-defined risk factor for CHD." [1]
  • "Public health emphasis on reducing SFA consumption without considering the replacement nutrient or, more importantly, the many other food-based risk factors for cardiometabolic disease is unlikely to produce substantial intended benefits." [1]
  • Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients with elevated LDL/HDL ratio survive by more than 12 months longer. [1]
  • "We conclude that major weight loss was associated with a late rise in serum cholesterol, possibly from mobilization of adipose cholesterol stores, which resolved when weight loss ceased." [1]
  • "The results show that dietary and plasma saturated fat are not related, and that increasing dietary carbohydrate across a range of intakes promotes incremental increases in plasma palmitoleic acid, a biomarker consistently associated with adverse health outcomes." [1]
  • Replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates increases small, dense LDL particles, shifts to an overall atherogenic lipid profile, and increases incidence of diabetes and obesity. Replacing saturated fat with omega 6 polyunsaturated fats increases risk of cancer, increases risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular events, and death to heart disease and overall mortality, increases oxidized LDL-C, reduces HDL-C. [1]
  • Low cholesterol is associated with mortality from cardiovascular disease. [1]

Conclusion:

The lipid hypothesis is foolish.

[–]greyuniwave 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Collections of studies on low carb diets

  • A handy spreadsheet titled "Summary Data From 18 Random, Controlled Trials Comparing Various Versions of Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets" [1] [2]
  • Low carb diet research from 2005 to 2011 [1]
  • 24 studies on low carbohydrate diets. [1]
  • 23 studies on low carb and low fat diets. [1]
  • 181 studies in favor of ketogenic diets. [1]
  • Principia Ketogenica, a compendium of hundreds of research papers and scholarly journal articles on low carbohydrate and ketogenic diets. [1]

Studies on low carb diets

  • "In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets." [1]
  • "They clearly confirm that carbohydrate restriction leads to an improvement in atherogenic lipid states in the absence of weight loss or in the presence of higher saturated fat. In distinction, low fat diets seem to require weight loss for effective improvement in atherogenic dyslipidemia." [1]
  • "These results indicate that carbohydrate restriction favorably alters VLDL metabolism and apolipoprotein concentrations, while the components of the egg yolk favor the formation of larger LDL and HDL leading to an increase in plasma lutein and zeaxanthin." [1]
  • "Participants on a low-carbohydrate diet had more favorable overall outcomes at 1 year than did those on a conventional diet. Weight loss was similar between groups, but effects on atherogenic dyslipidemia and glycemic control were still more favorable with a low-carbohydrate diet after adjustment for differences in weight loss." [1]
  • "Intakes of fat >40% of energy and of carbohydrate <45% of energy for 2 y were associated with a lower triacylglycerol concentration at a stable weight." "Modest favorable trends in triacylglycerol and HDL-cholesterol concentrations were observed with higher fat intakes." [1]

[–]greyuniwave 0 points1 point  (2 children)

  • "In summary, the LCKD had positive effects on body weight, waist measurement, serum triglycerides, and glycemic control in a cohort of 21 participants with type 2 diabetes. Most impressive is that improvement in hemoglobin A1c was observed despite a small sample size and short duration of follow-up, and this improvement in glycemic control occurred while diabetes medications were reduced substantially in many participants." [1]
  • "Advice on a 20 % carbohydrate diet with some caloric restriction to obese patients with type 2 diabetes has lasting effect on bodyweight and glycemic control." [1]
  • "Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost." [1]
  • "Compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet program had better participant retention and greater weight loss. During active weight loss, serum triglyceride levels decreased more and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level increased more with the low-carbohydrate diet than with the low-fat diet." [1]
  • "A ketogenic diet favorably affects serum biomarkers for cardiovascular disease in normal-weight men" [1]
  • "Evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that LC/HP diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as LF diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to 1 year." [1]
  • "The LC diet appears to be an effective method for short-term weight loss in overweight adolescents and does not harm the lipid profile." [1]
  • Low carb diets curb appetite, cause voluntary calorie reduction and weight loss, and improve glucose levels, insulin sensitivity, triglycerides, and cholesterol. [1]
  • Low carb diets are muscle sparing. [1] [2] [3] [4]
  • An 1930 study of two men living on exclusively meat for a year. "The meat used included beef, lamb, veal, pork, and chicken. The parts used were muscle, liver, kidney, brain, bone marrow, bacon, and fat." [1]
  • "The present study shows the beneficial effects of a long-term ketogenic diet. It significantly reduced the body weight and body mass index of the patients. Furthermore, it decreased the level of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and blood glucose, and increased the level of HDL cholesterol. Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients. Therefore, the present study confirms that it is safe to use a ketogenic diet for a longer period of time than previously demonstrated." [1]
  • "This study shows the beneficial effects of ketogenic diet following its long term administration in obese subjects with a high level of total cholesterol. Moreover, this study demonstrates that low carbohydrate diet is safe to use for a longer period of time in obese subjects with a high total cholesterol level and those with normocholesterolemia." [1]
  • "In conclusion, a 2-year workplace intervention trial involving healthy dietary changes had long-lasting, favorable postintervention effects, particularly among participants receiving the Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets, despite a partial regain of weight." [1]
  • "The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease." [1]
  • Rare case of a low fat diet outperforming low carb in any measure: "Over 1 year, there was a favorable effect of an energy-restricted LF diet compared with an isocaloric LC diet on mood state and affect in overweight and obese individuals. Both diets had similar effects on working memory and speed of processing." [1] (It seems to directly contradict the antidepressant effects of the ketogenic diet, but that is another topic).
  • Low carb diets result in more weight loss and better adherence in insulin-resistant women [1]
  • "Limited Effect of Dietary Saturated Fat on Plasma Saturated Fat in the Context of a Low Carbohydrate Diet" [1]
  • "Weight changes did not differ between the diet groups, while insulin doses were reduced significantly more with the LCD at 6 months, when compliance was good. Thus, aiming for 20% of energy intake from carbohydrates is safe with respect to cardiovascular risk compared with the traditional LFD and this approach could constitute a treatment alternative." [1]
  • "The low-carbohydrate diet was more effective for weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor reduction than the low-fat diet. Restricting carbohydrate may be an option for persons seeking to lose weight and reduce cardiovascular risk factors." [1]
  • "Dietary carbohydrate restriction reliably reduces high blood glucose, does not require weight loss (although is still best for weight loss), and leads to the reduction or elimination of medication. It has never shown side effects comparable with those seen in many drugs." [1]
  • "Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet." [1]
  • "Hyperglycemia promotes hepatic steatosis via the lipogenic pathway in the liver of juvenile ob/ob mice. However, the development of steatosis is prevented by feeding KD owing to an improvement in hyperglycemia. We found that the progression of steatosis is reflected by the composition of fatty acids in the total lipids of the liver and serum." [1]
  • "Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women." [1]
  • You burn 300 calories more on a very low carbohydrate diet. [1]
  • High protein diets increase energy expenditure. [1]
  • Eskimos have earlier onset osteoporosis due to low calcium intake, so supplementation is recommended. [1]
  • Low carbohydrates do not affect bone turnover rates however. [1]
  • Ketogenic diets require higher biotin (vitamin B7) intake. [1]
  • Ketogenic diets require less vitamin C intake because glucose and ascorbic acid compete for entry into cells. [1]
  • "The LCKD improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes such that diabetes medications were discontinued or reduced in most participants. Because the LCKD can be very effective at lowering blood glucose, patients on diabetes medication who use this diet should be under close medical supervision or capable of adjusting their medication." [1]
  • Low carb diets decrease triglycerides. [1] [2] [3]
  • Protein satiates. [1]
  • Fat also satiates via cholecystokinin and serotonin receptors. [1] [2]
  • Olive oil satiates. [1]
  • Ketosis improves cognitive performance in dogs. [1] [2]

Conclusion:

Low carb diets are superior by almost all measures.

[–]greyuniwave 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Studies on low carb veg*an diets

  • Cohort study. "A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates." [1]

Conclusion:

We need more research.

Other

  • A study suggest 30% fats, including 15-16% oleic acid, and at most 7% polyunsaturated fats. Mind you however that it still relies on the lipid hypothesis, and avoids saturated fats that could raise cholesterol. [1]
  • "While protein restriction may be appropriate for treatment of existing kidney disease, we find no significant evidence for a detrimental effect of high protein intakes on kidney function in healthy persons after centuries of a high protein Western diet." [1]

Studies excluded

  • Excluded because of unrealistic fructose consumption. [1]

Extra: Darndest things vegan researchers say

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow good stuff. I'll try to add some of it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks!

[–]ds9f8h 1 point2 points  (0 children)

hey do me a favor please and download all of these links into a zip file, like download the html pages or pdf and then host the file somewhere and put it here please so i can save them to my archive without spending the next day doing it?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is fucking awesome! Especially liked the ethics and morals section! Well done

[–]Pirate_Assassin_Spy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for this!

[–]tlax38 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks a lot.

It helps me in my debate against vegans.

Especially when vegans pretend that eating meat is unnecessary.

[–]Puppywanton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bravo. Another tactic that I see vegans using is a form of false equivalence with a healthy dose of reductio ad absurdem.

That is to say, after you’ve carefully responded to a vegan, some of them are either too lazy, too overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance (or I suspect, too demented from the neurocognitive deficits stemming from their self-induced malnutrition), that they copypasta your entire argument.

They then carefully edit keywords with vegan buzzwords as a response to refute anything you’ve said, in order to “highlight the absurdity” of your claims.

This is akin to telling a child “you broke the vase, didn’t you?” and having them scream “NO, YOU DID!” in response.

[–]ishmaearth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Disclaimer: I’m not Vegan (because of the vitamins) - I agree with a lot of stuff on your list, here are some opinions that I would like to share without getting attacked.

The WHO says that the Mediterranean (includes meat) diets are the healthiest - however, meat is viewed as more of a topping than the main part of an entree in this type of diet. I really do think the way Americans view meat/dairy portions is just as unhealthy as being vegan - since they’re no. 1 in diabetes, heart disease, and other preventable diseases - so the status quo is not working out, and it’s a huge burden on our healthcare systems.

Veganism is not just for rich people in every country - I’ve been to countries where HALF of the menu at almost every restaurant is meat/dairy free and equally priced - these are countries whose governments subsidize fruits and veggies as much as they do cash crops like wheat, corn, and sugar. Regardless, It should not be this expensive to eat a plant based diet - and that’s on your government, not the people preaching veganism. It’s putting a huge burden on the healthcare system, and everyone in America at least, should be eating way more fresh produce - and this needs to change - i just think the point you’re making about veganism being too expensive should be re-routed to a non vegan argument because it’s a serious problem (I would do some research on food deserts)

I’m an environmental scientist - eating livestock is absolutely more environmentally detrimental than being vegan. You are also discounting the potential use of vertical farms when it comes to space/water needed. Also, just because the animals are eating “undesirable” parts of plants/animals - does not mean it couldn’t be going towards compost / also, the gas produced from compost can be harvested for energy use. Furthermore - it’s important to consider that animals are spreading diseases (this current pandemic for one), but also - when there’s a recall on spinach because it’s been contaminated from E. coli - it’s coming from the animals. So, not that I think veganism is the answer - but this point in your argument just doesn’t make sense to me.

You mention how many of the studies are corrupt because of who is sponsoring them - but the most powerful companies / the ones with the most money / government connections are those within the industries we are talking about - and most likely, your studies have a lot of bias in them as well. (After all, At one point, cigarettes were shown to be healthy as well) I just think it’s important to keep in mind.

[–]greyuniwave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some more adaptations etc that points to importance of meat eating

  • at the same time in history as humans spread around the globe. what had been a continual increasing in size of mammals (mega fauna) over 60 million years. within a million years or so almost all went extinct, Likely due to our hunting prowess. see 04:00 for graph.

  • shoulder joint adapted to throwing points to importance of hunting. (makes tree climbing harder) link

  • isotope measurements of nitrogen (gets accumulated as the trophic level go up) all measurements show humans of the upper paleolitich having same levels as carnivores. study & chart

  • Adaptations to more efficient walking and running points to importance of hunting.
    there are many adaptations to meat eating see infographic for quick overview of some.

  • lost ability to absorb b12 from colon thus we need to eat meat to get it.

  • According to this study looking at the stomach acid of 68 species, humans are in the top 10 of strongest stomach acid, in same range as obligate carnivores and scavengers, this is metabolically expensive… Heard some argue that we likely started eating meat by scavenging. link

  • Our massive brain came at the cost of a much shrunken gut thus drastically decreasing our ability to ferment fiber and increasing need for high caloricly dense food and higher need of many nutrients primarily found in animal foods (zinc, dha etc). link

  • Brain also decreased in size when we went from hunter gather to agriculturists. link

  • compared to other hominids we have much shorter colon <2-3x (decreased capacity for fermentation), non existent cecum (we cant breakdown cellulose). larger >2-3x small intestine (adapted to more easily digested food ie meat & cooked starch) link

  • Research on weaning points to importance of meat.

    • All the meat-eaters, including ferrets, killer whales, and humans, reached that point of brain development earlier than herbivores or omnivores, the researchers found. They classified humans as carnivores based on the percentage of meat in the typical human diet and despite the moderate meat consumption of Homo sapiens, humans fit the prediction of time to weaning based on fully specialized carnivores. link

[–]lasanhist 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Forgot to post this earlier, but this was the response in a crosspost.

[–]NaniGaHoshiiDesuKa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LMFAOO dude go spread it "nah too lazy" yeah I bet

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

I’m a doctor and It always terrifies me when I hear that a child’s been vegan all their life. My superiors always tell me to hold my tongue. I’m thankful that I live in Europe where we have saner laws about vitamin labelling. The parents who are vegan, usually, are anti -vax as well, but not all.

Everyone ain the hospital I work at agreed with me that vegan diets are not suitable for children.

[–]NaniGaHoshiiDesuKa 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Everyone ain the hospital I work at agreed with me that vegan diets are not suitable for children.

Why people force veganism on their kids smh..I get it you want the best but they have a say as well IT'S THEIR BODY, THEIR LIFE not to mention going extreme in your diet is always a bad choice take for example water YOUR BODY needs it to exist but too much can LITERALLY kill you this shows that everything must be in balance including your diet your diet must include meat and veg BOTH

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Yes, I agree that kids need both meat and veg, I’m not an idiot. Why would I advocate for an all meat diet? That’s just as extreme as veganism.

[–]NaniGaHoshiiDesuKa 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I’m not an idiot

never said you're an idiot and I'm so sorry if it sounded like that I have THE UTMOST respect for Doctors, medicine is a really important subject today and in our life also it's one of the things that REALLY intrigue me

Why would I advocate for an all meat diet? That’s just as extreme as veganism.

never said you advocated for it... again sorry if it sounded like that if I said anything wrong by mistake I take it back

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Oh, then it was my fault for misunderstanding. But I haven't had kids come into me because they were on an all-meat diet though.

[–]NaniGaHoshiiDesuKa 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But I haven't had kids come into me

Good thing lol glad to see they're healthy

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They probably have come through where I worked and where I work now but I just haven’t seen them.

[–]Neveah_Hope_Dreams 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Wait, really? The vegan parents are anti-vaxx? Why am I not surprised but also shocked? Ugggghhhh! Horrible scums those kind of parents are!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I’ve heard viruses are living things, vaccines cause autism, vaccines are egg-based, they’re not vegan and many kore that I need to remember. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHOUT AT THE TOP OF NY LUNGS THAT VACCINES DON’T CAUSE AUTISM!

[–]Neveah_Hope_Dreams 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Freaking shit!!! As an Aspie I'm disgusted by that lie. I hate it!!!

[–]monkey-go-code 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol holy shit this is awesome.

[–]dem0n0cracyPlantFree 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You should copy and paste the text into a new post so you can edit it. Posts get locked after 6 months 180 days

[–]tokinbl 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Conflicts of interest and funding

Tanja Kongerslev Thorning has no conflicts of interest to declare. Anne Raben is recipient of research funding from the Dairy Research Institute, Rosemont, IL, USA and the Danish Agriculture & Food Council.Tine Tholstrup is recipient of research grants from the Danish Dairy Research Foundation and the Dairy Research Institute, Rosemont, IL....

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Replaced it with something better. ¯\(ツ)

[–]TomJCharles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

even Carnivore.

Especially carnivore, since it's basically 95% fat and protein. It is basically exactly what the body needs to go into very low insulin fat burning mode. Unless the person is eating something crazy like 4 lbs of meat per day. Then more of that is getting converted into glucose.

I have no idea on its long term health implications, but over the short to mid term, it seems a perfectly safe intervention.


Appeal to emotion: Usage of words exclusive to humans (rape, murder, slavery, ... ) in the context of animals.

They use this one all the effing time.

Pigs are clever, but there probably isn't much, if any, meta-cognition going on. They're not aware of their own mortality. They're certainly capable of perceiving pain. Any animal is. But pain perception is not the same as suffering.

There probably isn't an awareness in the pig thinking, "Uh, this sucks. I wish I wasn't experiencing this."

Humans and other apes, dolphins and maybe elephants are probably the only animals capable of this level of cognition.


Thanks for putting this list together, btw.

[–]theCraigmobile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

idk too lazy to read but i love meat

[–]TheRealJonnyV 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Thanks for putting this together, it is pretty amazing and thorough. I'll be reading through it to see if there is anything I can add.

EDIT: what is the story behind this photo? https://i.imgur.com/WrR8EEw.jpg

[–]BoarstWurstBeef Business Agent[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Those are rabbits from Australia that die to pest management. They reproduce rapidly and have no natural predator (since they originated from Europe) so humans have to take care of the problem.

[–]TheRealJonnyV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. Thanks.

[–]williamofdallas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That "Sharing meals has a social and psychological role," is a silly thing to bring up. A meal doesn't have to include meat in order to serve that role.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A true humanitarian at work

[–]greyuniwave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoscience/comments/9tzwmb/not_convinced_ketosis_is_healthy_but_id_like_to/e927y1g/

I wish the cooking hypothesis would fucking die already. It is nothing more than vegan historical revisionism.


This is called the cooking hypothesis, or more specifically the cooked starch hypothesis. It sounds feasible for someone without any knowledge of anthropology, biology, or nutrition. However if you investigate it even just a bit closer, it completely falls apart, because it is inconsistent with many observations:

  • Human brain size started to increase 2+ million years ago. Even the most permissive evidence for cooking leaves a 1+ million year gap unexplained.
  • Grain consumption is much more recent, the most permissive evidence places sporadic grain consumption to 100k years ago.
  • Widespread grain consumption, that you would need to sustain an entire population reliant on cooked starch, is merely a few 10k years old.
  • Human brain development is dependent on nutrients found in animal products: Preformed EPA and DHA, choline, carnitine, creatine, phospholipids, and of course vitamin B12 at the very least.
  • Ketogenic diets have many, many well-documented beneficial effects on cognitive health. They are the superior diet for brain health as far as I am concerned.
  • Neanderthals had the largest brains and they had a mostly meat diet.
  • Human brain size is declining approximately since the introduction of agriculture.
  • There is a correlation between latitude and brain size. Northern populations have larger brains and more meat-heavy diets. The Inuit have the largest brains.
  • There are many tribes today who do not eat carbohydrates, and a few who eat only raw meat. The Inuit for example are not very keen on cooking. Their brains seem to develop fine.
  • There is no evidence that cooking would increase bioavailability of energy. Removal of the fiber structure does, with disastrous consequences.
  • There are many animals with brain size comparable to humans, either absolute or relative to body mass. None of them cook.
  • Intermittent food availability and prolonged fasting outright forces humans and many other animals to operate on fatty acids and ketones. Glycogen stores last only for less than a day.
  • Human brains have mostly non-insulin-dependent glucose transporters rather than the insulin dependent GLUT4 found in muscles.
  • Human brains have only very limited glycogen stores, and those are only used during hypoglycemia and ischemia.
  • The hypothesis relies on the myth that the human brain requires 130 grams of carbohydrates. This is outright false, it only needs adequate protein and fat intake.
  • Low carbohydrate intake does not lead to hypoglycemia, not even in lactating mothers. On the contrary, keto is protective of hypoglycemia.
  • The hypothesis originates from Richard Wrangham, a vegetarian primatologist. I do not think he is malicious, but he is certainly biased by both of these aspects.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. This hypothesis is bollocks.

[–]greyuniwave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great comment on Campbell and the china study by a vegan on the vegan subreddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/zz7wb/debunking_resources/c6bky0m/

Unfortunately, the reason why more people don't rebut these kinds of things is because it takes time and effort to do so, and this sadly requires funding to accomplish if you're not independently wealthy. As a decidedly not independently wealthy person, I simply do not have the free time available to replicate reviews that have already been done multiple times. If I were to do such a review, it might convince those that know me, my character, and my attention to detail; but honestly, no one else would listen. It would just be yet another critique of the China Study, and there are all too many of those already.

As a short list, here are a few peer-reviewed articles specifically attacking claims made in the China Study (which, by the way, is itself not peer-reviewed):

For fun, notice that every single debunking article I mentioned above is from T. Colin Campbell himself. Yes, seriously. He actually rebuts his own points when submitting peer reviewed articles. I guess he's more careful with what he says when he's not writing a book aimed at the general public to help convince people to go vegan.

[–]Neveah_Hope_Dreams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow! Thankyou so much for all of this info!

This is surely to bash the radical activists!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think what Belgium does is wrong here I mean their not allowed to enforce veganism but can enforce any other diet cmon I ain’t vegan but that just seems unfair

[–]ccced 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well done. Saved.

[–]RobotOrgy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude. This is amazing. I get in so many arguments about this stuff. Thank you for this compilation.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great post. Thanks for the info.

[–]ahmedino95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A++