|
fishmech posted:My problem is you're recommending a diet that provably results in nutritional deficiencies in most people who attempt it, if they're not extremely careful to properly source things to supplement the rest of their food. The very fact that you think the solution is "just eat the food you can eat" when the foods you can eat are the problem only cinches it. Please feel free to point out the falsehoods, its the point of an honest discussion.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Coylter posted:Please feel free to point out the falsehoods, its the point of an honest discussion. "Just eat some beans/flax/etc and you won't have nutritional deficiencies" "Regularly consuming and finding accurately labeled supplements to avoid nutritional deficiencies is easy" "We used to get B12 from eating dirty food" "Veganism is safe" "Processed food is bad" "Processed food is a term with a usable meaning"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Bryter posted:No, being misinformed is not a mental illness. That's fair. I guess I was remembering vegans I've met who seem to be disgusted and frightened of the idea of eating any amount of animal products, no matter how small. Not wanting to use pots washed with a sponge which also washed pots which held meat, for example. But then not everyone restricting calories is an anorexic.  I really want to hear more vegan  though. Which human ancestor didn't even eat eggs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
I wanted to see if I could find anything fast regarding veganism and childhood neglect and meh, it's a pretty sad read. Anecdotes of underdevelopment which likely stemmed from year 0-1 malnutrition, recommendations to not tell CPS/others that you feed your child a vegan diet, and my heart just breaks for how difficult that child's life will be if they ever decide not to be vegan; finding that they cannot process dairy or other foods well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:"Just eat some beans/flax/etc and you won't have nutritional deficiencies" 1- I think i have been very clear that i advocate a diverse selection of food to cover all your base but perhaps it wasn't as clear as i wished. So there it is. 2-Look buying B12 supplement IS easy unless you are just handicapped. 3-You are right on this, we did get B12 from meat but we also got it from bacteria in dirt. 4-Veganism can be super dangerous if you are an idiot, i have made that pretty clear. You can eat an all potato chips diet. 5-I never said processed food is bad per say. 6-It is a term with a usable meaning. It's poor and imprecise, which ive stated and agreed to, but it is a term with a meaning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Coylter posted:1- I think i have been very clear that i advocate a diverse selection of food to cover all your base but perhaps it wasn't as clear as i wished. So there it is. When are you going to get that that doesn't work? Except well over 60% of vegans were diagnosed with deficiency regradless. This is in part likely to be because supplements are practically unregulated, and many do not contain what they say they contain. No, you don't really get it from bacteria in dirt except in rare cases. This has been tested, and it does not occur in common farming situations Well apparently the vast majority of vegans are idiots under your definition then? You said to avoid it, why would you avoid something that's good? Define that meaning in a way that is consistent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Coylter posted:4-Veganism can be super dangerous if you are an idiot, i have made that pretty clear. You can eat an all potato chips diet. jre posted:
Gonna go out on a limb and say not all of that 92% were eating an all potato chips diet. It's not just edge case "idiots" who endanger their health with a vegan diet, it is in fact fairly difficult not to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:When are you going to get that that doesn't work? Well 72% of Americans believe in angels...
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Coylter posted:Well 72% of Americans believe in angels... Ffffuck. poo poo. holy god drat, I've never seen such a brutal own before......
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:That's fair. I guess I was remembering vegans I've met who seem to be disgusted and frightened of the idea of eating any amount of animal products, no matter how small. Not wanting to use pots washed with a sponge which also washed pots which held meat, for example. But then not everyone restricting calories is an anorexic. heh, now that's almost as bad as the Kosher rules
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:"Regularly consuming and finding accurately labeled supplements to avoid nutritional deficiencies is easy" I'm with the vegan on this one, as supplements are sorted on the shelf alphabetically Coylter posted:6-It is a term with a usable meaning. It's poor and imprecise, which ive stated and agreed to, but it is a term with a meaning. I like how you backtrack on whether the meaning is useful within the same bullet point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
*carolers start singing ABBA's hit song I Have a Dream* "I believe in angels, something good in everything I see" Heh, if you all believe in angels, here's something good you should also believe. You can get vitamin B12 from beans, soy, flax seed, etc. It's just the facts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I'm with the vegan on this one, as supplements are sorted on the shelf alphabetically The problem is that since supplements have practically no regulation, many end up not containing the thing they're meant to contain. While it's easy to find something that says it has, say B12, you might easily end up without any at all, or with such a low amount when taking the supplement that you're still deficient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The problem is that since supplements have practically no regulation, many end up not containing the thing they're meant to contain. While it's easy to find something that says it has, say B12, you might easily end up without any at all, or with such a low amount when taking the supplement that you're still deficient. Wait, I can just sell a gel caplet with some water in it and tell everyone it's 300mg of Vitamin D? I thought I had to call it homeopathic for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Wait, I can just sell a gel caplet with some water in it and tell everyone it's 300mg of Vitamin D? I thought I had to call it homeopathic for that. The FDA provides "guidance" for supplement manufacture, but basically gently caress all actual enforceable regulation. quote:Under DSHEA, a firm is responsible for determining that the dietary supplements it manufactures or distributes are safe and that any representations or claims made about them are substantiated by adequate evidence to show that they are not false or misleading. This means that dietary supplements do not need approval from FDA before they are marketed. quote:Except in the case of a new dietary ingredient, where pre-market review for safety data and other information is required by law, a firm does not have to provide FDA with the evidence it relies on to substantiate safety or effectiveness before or after it markets its products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Putting the wrong thing (ie lying on the label) in a supplement is just as illegal and enforceable as putting the wrong thing in regular foods. As to whether or not it's actually enforced, well,
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Putting the wrong thing (ie lying on the label) in a supplement is just as illegal and enforceable as putting the wrong thing in regular foods. As to whether or not it's actually enforced, well, As I understand it, the FDA relies on firms to determine that the claims they make about their products are backed by evidence but they don't examine that evidence themselves, and won't (and, as far as I know, have no legal means to) do so unless there's evidence that the supplements are harmful. Meaning there's basically no reason to fear repercussions if you sell people water and say it's something else. I'm not an authority on the subject though, and I'd be pretty happy to hear that I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Bryter posted:As I understand it, the FDA relies on firms to determine that the claims they make about their products are backed by evidence but they don't examine that evidence themselves, and won't (and, as far as I know, have no legal means to) do so unless there's evidence that the supplements are harmful. Meaning there's basically no reason to fear repercussions if you sell people water and say it's something else. I'm not an authority on the subject though, and I'd be pretty happy to hear that I'm wrong. You're confusing claims about a product "vitamin b-12 supports blood health" with claims about what the product is "this contains vitamin b-12". It's sort of legal to lie about the former for supplements, but not the latter
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:You're confusing claims about a product "vitamin b-12 supports blood health" with claims about what the product is "this contains vitamin b-12". It's sort of legal to lie about the former for supplements, but not the latter The question, again, isn't in legality but in actual enforcement. It's also illegal for me to go 5 miles over the speed limit yet here I sit home from work seconds earlier than the earliest I could legally arrive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:You're confusing claims about a product "vitamin b-12 supports blood health" with claims about what the product is "this contains vitamin b-12". It's sort of legal to lie about the former for supplements, but not the latter I'm not saying making the claims is legal, but the impression I get is that there's basically zero will or ability to investigate claims about contents unless they're harmful. Reading up on it brought me to this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/new-york-attorney-general-targets-supplements-at-major-retailers/ quote:The Food and Drug Administration has targeted individual supplements found to contain dangerous ingredients. But the announcement Monday was the first time that a law enforcement agency had threatened the biggest retail and drugstore chains with legal action for selling what it said were deliberately misleading herbal products. Which seems like a start, at least. But yeah, leaving aside the legality/enforceability, seems like right now buying supplements in America is a bit of a lottery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Would rather b b12 deficient than morbidly obese.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
I have also known a handful of sickly fat vegans who ate fuckloads of chips, peanut butter and substitute mayo. There is also my aunt and uncle, but they spend much of their free time gardening and cooking. The food they bring to family gatherings is really good, but that's because they are skilled and willing to devote the time. It might be worth mentioning that their rationale for their diet is more about sustainability and animal cruelty. They're definitely health conscious too, which is why they are careful about their diet. Anyway, I hate to be some answer in the middle type, but doesn't it make sense to just eat a varied diet with a complete set of nutritional requirements, yet also has the optimal amount of calories for ones goals? While I'd love to ditch the meat, it's too much work not too so I just eat mostly vegetarian with a little meat here and there. I'm lookin' and feelin' pretty good! Some other diet might work for someone else depending on their tastes, capability, and resources. I mean, what are we even trying to do here in this thread, find one simple diet solution for everyone?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Don't use the new york times as a reference for DS or really any sort of nutrition matter.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Isn't the bio-availability of B12 supplements really loving low, sometimes even zero if it's the wrong kind of B12? Also, the body can only absorb so much B12 at a time and even working supplements end up with most of the B12 coming out the other end. Vegans are dumb as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Would rather b b12 deficient than morbidly obese. Do you have a condition which makes it difficult to avoid both of these problems at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:Isn't the bio-availability of B12 supplements really loving low, sometimes even zero if it's the wrong kind of B12? Also, the body can only absorb so much B12 at a time and even working supplements end up with most of the B12 coming out the other end. Yeah there's a lot of ways that B12 can be packaged and consumed wrong in supplements, when it's there at all. It's a big part of the reason that vegans end up with b12 deficiency so drat often, while it's massively less common in vegetarians and omnivores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:Isn't the bio-availability of B12 supplements really loving low, sometimes even zero if it's the wrong kind of B12? Also, the body can only absorb so much B12 at a time and even working supplements end up with most of the B12 coming out the other end. Yep B12 is actually a good example here. In that the vast majority of supplement contain a cheap type of B12 which is pretty much useless. You actually have to read the label to see the type of the of B12. Most people don't even know that there are different types of B12 let alone what the chemical name to look for on the ingredient list. This is partly why supplements are misleading. FSMC fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Coylter posted:Yes because humans have always had an obesity problem...oh i forgot, its the loving air. Who cares, do they have lower bodyfat and better overall body composition?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Who cares, do they have lower bodyfat and better overall body composition? Seems like they might have lower body fat at least. 
Bryter fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Bast Relief posted:
Yes. We need an understanding of the issues that is based on scientific evidence so that we can do things like plan a food supply system that meets the nutritional needs of the population, for example, by incentivising food manufacturers to provide healthy foods. We also need to provide accurate information to people if they want it, and ensure that those who are in the care of others (the elderly, children) have adequate nutrition provided for them. Currently old people do not receive enough protein, which compromises their health quite profoundly for various reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Yes. We need an understanding of the issues that is based on scientific evidence so that we can do things like plan a food supply system that meets the nutritional needs of the population, for example, by incentivising food manufacturers to provide healthy foods. We also need to provide accurate information to people if they want it, and ensure that those who are in the care of others (the elderly, children) have adequate nutrition provided for them. Currently old people do not receive enough protein, which compromises their health quite profoundly for various reasons. There isn't really any such thing as "healthy food" beyond "food that is not actively poisoned or otherwise contaminated".
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Yes we all know you're only interested in your own interpretation of concepts that you pretend to understand, like thermodynamics and health.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Yes we all know you're only interested in your own interpretation of concepts that you pretend to understand, like thermodynamics and health. I'm sorry but there's literally no scientific evidence that any food is unhealthy, that isn't a food containing literal poisons or other forms of contamination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
I'm sorry but that is patently untrue. No qualified person (or even lay-person really) would say such a thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Seems like they might have lower body fat at least. Could this be a correlation to vegans being more health conscientious generally? Even if they aren't actually healthier, they are already baseline paying more attention to their food.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Yes, yes it could. Or with them being mildly malnourished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Flaky posted:I'm sorry but that is patently untrue. No qualified person (or even lay-person really) would say such a thing. It's patently true. There are only ways to eat foods that may be unhealthy, not unhealthy foods (again, outside of foods that literally contain poison or other contamination). And sure lots of lay people think there are unhealthy foods, but they're wrong and don't know jackshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Is there a term for foods which seem like a fine basis for a healthy diet but eventually wreck your poo poo? I know corn will rot your skin off if you forget the One Weird Trick to preparing them, and I thought chickpeas could cause similar troubles when communities use it as their primary grain. B12 deficiency doesn't sound like a walk in the park either. Remember to eat your dirt, kids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I'm sorry but there's literally no scientific evidence that any food is unhealthy, that isn't a food containing literal poisons or other forms of contamination. Do you mean that literally? If someone gave you a study showing that foods containing—say, transfats—are unhealthy, would you respond by categorizing transfats as contaminants? Because that's what I would do if I had given your argument, and I suspect I know where you're coming from. I don't have a study prepared, I'm just going on intuition here. A: I assume that you consider some foods (or meals) more valuable in improving the (human) digester's ability to perform physical tasks when consumed regularly. B: If your point is that 'unhealthy' is too ill-defined to single out any food clearly as such, can I suggest we treat it like a sliding scale and use the above metric (frequency and mass of the food/meal included)? If you dispute A, then I don't know where you're coming from and would like to hear why ice cream is no more demonstrably unhealthy than broccoli.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
fishmech posted:There isn't really any such thing as "healthy food" beyond "food that is not actively poisoned or otherwise contaminated". This is loving bullshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 03:27
|
|