>>6444715 been a vegan all my life (since 14, im 35 now), had a 3.9 in college, been working at microsoft as an sde for 7 years and get 1's/2's on my performance reviews. i make $274k a year not including stock and bonuses. lol
>>6444926 I'm a team lead at oracle and do keto. I eat steak and dairy with every meal, occasionally have greens. Right now I'm salaried at $275k with a $175k management incentive every year my team hits under our budget. I'm 29. Eat (vegan) shit.
>>6445045 >>6445037 >>6445033 Pathetic small time. I burn $274k every night in a bonfire to roast marshmallows. And when I don't want marshmallows I do it anyways and throw it all out right in front of my maids.
>>6444880 >I'm vegan but I do not agree with the definition of "vegan" including bee products
Then you might as well eat milk and cheese then because you aren't a fucking vegan. At most you are a vegetarian. Either way you are fucking stupid and doing it for attention rather than doing it for a cause or whatever stupid shit vegans do.
Congrats you are stupider than a vegan and you are a vain attention whore.
(this isn't tumblr, you can't fucking choose which parts of veganism you like, you are either one or the other. This isn't your made up binary helicopter/octopus genders.)
>>6447360 I'm so glad these fuck heads don't have any sort of influence in the world. They would probably either kill all carnivorous animals or isolate them on an island (effectively killing them off) just to push their stupid agenda.
I still can't believe that there are people in this world who think meat is so unhealthy when humans and animals have thrived off it for hundreds of thousands of years. I agree overly processed meat is bad, and some ways they treat the animals is bad (but I couldn't care less really, they must be doing something right because stressed animals taste like shit and all my meat tastes good) but there is a difference and all of these "radical vegans" don't understand shit.
>>6447487 Incorrect, it traditionally comes from mysore, although mysore sandalwood is overexploited and goan stuff has mostly taken over. Also some shit-tier aussie garbage that only disgusting people enjoy smelling. Fuck australia.
Why do vegans get shook about honey? It's all bees do really, they have no other purpose other then making honey. The last restaurant I worked at I had to bee keep for the rooftop canadian wildflower honey and the bees seemed ultra chill when it came to harvest time. We only took about half the load but by the end of my 2 years there I wasn't even wearing bee gear. I provided flowers, they made honey, seems like a good gig to me.
>The difference is that they don't annoy me BECAUSE they eat meat
Do you ever get annoyed when you see parents feed their kids McDonalds or some other unhealthy fast food?
>and their meat-eating isn't the result of some misguided pseudo-scientific, quasi-religious ideology.
You could say it's the result of indoctrination into a meat-eating culture. The fact that your way seems normal to you doesn't mean it's normal to everyone. To them, your choice to eat meat seems extreme and strange.
First you should understand that American liberalism is the direct descendent of 16th century Protestant religious fury a la the Puritans or the Diggers. And veganism tends to be an offshoot of this attitude.
Once you understand that you're dealing with an outcasted religious cult, you'll understand veganism perfectly.
>>6447846 Or just the inverse. Not eating meat is a fad that emerged only very recently in the western world, however even in places in the eastern world perceived to be 'vegan' are not, like how in India, over half the Hindu population consumes chicken, fish and poultry, with the reasoning that chickens and fish do not have souls, therefore its okay, and even then, another section of the population will eat dairy products without qualms.
Buddhists will eat meat without qualms.
You know what gets put in a lot of curries? Yogurt.
The main reason its become so popular is that middle class white guilt laden young people need a way to ease their guilt, feel like they belong to a clique, and have their own "morality" to attack and proselytize others into being vegans with.
Its truly just conspicuous consumption, hence why vegans are so fucking quick to announce to the world at any opportunity that "OH, NONE OF THAT MURDER YOU CALL 'MEAT' FOR ME, I'M A VEGAN, I CARE ABOUT ANIMALS, THEY'RE OUR EQUALS!" whilst they trot around, claiming that they're better than everyone around them.
You think strictly consuming vegetables results in the death of no animals? What of rabbits and deer who eat a farmers soy? Feral hogs who root through a farmers sweet potatoes? Crow and doves who eat the farmers corn? Mice who eat the farmers grain? They are killed, just to ensure that those vegetables will reach you.
Meat is not "murder", to die is not a negative in the animal world, but a release and passing of life force to another being. There is no life without the guarantee of death, whether it should come at the hands of man, nature or time, a being will die, its inevitable. Its nothing to be saddened, or in fear of, it just is.
You are free to act as you will in this world, but to scoff at the innate natural order, and to liken your fellow beings and your ancestors to murderers for what they ate, is foolish beyond words.
To bring up religion again, we could say atheism is "a new fad" because all cultures have had some form of religious teaching.
Your problem with veganism seems to stem more from defensiveness. Just to challenge your "everything dies, killing is nature," does that apply in your mind to killing other humans, which would of course be a completely natural thing other animals do within their species? If you take the position that killing isn't wrong because everything dies, I would expect you to hold that belief even for other humans, who also die
>Do you ever get annoyed when you see parents feed their kids McDonalds or some other unhealthy fast food? Yes, but they do it not out of any kind of principle. They do it because they like it and the salts and fats and carbs appeal to them.
>You could say it's the result of indoctrination into a meat-eating culture. >indoctrination youkeepusingthatword.odt
There is no "meat doctrine." You simply don't understand how someone can do something undogmatically, so you're projecting your own doctrinaire tendencies onto others.
You treat eating meat as if it isn't an ideology of its own. I'm sorry to tell you, it is. It's a choice that stems from a belief. You may not have made the choice yourself, your parents raised you that way, but it's still a belief you hold.
>>6447932 But athiesm isn't a fad. Even back in the old days there were tribes/civilizations that didn't believe in the existence of gods. Religion is a fad you stupid twit. People got scared and thought "what happens when I die" so they made up God so they could live peacefully in their bubble protected by god and when they die they could go to heaven.
Goddamn you are just reinforcing the stereotype that vegans are just as stupid as bible thumping idiots.
>>6447932 >does that apply in your mind to killing other humans, which would of course be a completely natural thing other animals do within their species? If you take the position that killing isn't wrong because everything dies, I would expect you to hold that belief even for other humans, who also die
What is, "I don't want to go to jail indefinitely"
>>6447932 Atheism in the western world isn't really a fad, people have been questioning the existence of the divine since forever. (However you can certainly consider your average fedora tipping layman to be a fad follower, despite how "enlightened by their own intellect" they claim to be.)
Its not defensiveness to understand that the natural order of things is that, simply put, things, eat other things. Mankind has been a thing, which has eaten other things, those things include animals, and even man.
However, we know that if people eat other people, they get diseases like kuru which has detrimental lifelong effects, showing that man shouldn't eat man, not just on a moral basis, but on a scientific one.
Whether you want to object to this is irrelevant to it occurring. Man has domesticated and eaten animals since recorded history, and pre-history. Before agriculture, there was nomadic hunting and gathering.
Now, you ask "what is right among man?" or "what is moral?" Man killing other men, is wrong, but it still happens.
If a colt horse stomps a foal to death because it can't walk after if was born, is that right?
If a male grizzly kills a mother grizzly's cubs because he wants to mate with her, is that right?
Man has the knowledge of what is "good" and what is "evil", animals do not. If you're going to state that there is no such thing as either, and that they are all subjective, then you'd realize theres no point in further arguing.
>It's no more a belief for a human than it is for a cat.
How do you figure that?
>Again, you're projecting. You sound exactly like evangelical Christians who describe atheism as a religion
Let me try to describe it with an atheist tone then: veganism is the lack of doing something (killing animals), therefore the person doing the action of killing animals has the belief that requires justification
>>6447976 >You treat eating meat as if it isn't an ideology of its own. I'm sorry to tell you, it is. It's a choice that stems from a belief. You may not have made the choice yourself, your parents raised you that way, but it's still a belief you hold.
IT'S NOT A FUCKING BELIEF. WE ARE LITERALLY BORN TO EAT MEAT. OUR TEETH ARE LITERALLY MADE TO TEAR THROUGH MEAT. THIS IS SIMPLE FUCKING BIOLOGY.
>inb4 "Biology is an ideology. Some people don't believe in Biology, so it isn't true."
You are one special fucking snowflake and I hope you burn in hell.
>However, we know that if people eat other people, they get diseases like kuru which has detrimental lifelong effects, showing that man shouldn't eat man, not just on a moral basis, but on a scientific one.
Easily arguable that eating animals can lead to heart disease and increased risk of cancer. In fact, that's been a pretty strong argument lately.
>Man killing other men, is wrong, but it still happens.
Alright, why? To me, that just sounds like "anything I want to do to another creature is morally okay, but people shouldn't do the same thing to me or else that's immoral." Some humans hold the belief that man can kill man, survival of the fittest and all that. How would you respond to them calling you holier-than-though for looking down on their actions?
>>6447994 You're the ones insisting that everyone else changes behavior. The impetus is actually on you to demonstrate your case. And you do so on ideological grounds. Your intent is to impose a specific ethical code on others. One could play all sorts of sophistic games like you do. I could say that eating meat is the lack of doing something (discriminating between animal and plant nutrition), therefore it's on YOU to justify blah blah blah.
>How do you figure that? Cats are not sentient, reasoning creatures.
>>6448007 None of that takes away the validity of his sentence (whether he turned on capslock and looked like an asshole or not). Simple biology is, we are born to eat meat. Now yes we do have a choice, but does that mean it's the correct choice? Who knows. All I know is, we are born to eat meat, so why try to stray from that just because you think we should abide by some inane morals that started within the last century?
Even cultures that don't eat stuff like beef still eat fish, chicken, and other birds. There has never been a culture throughout history that has stopped eating meat altogether (and if there was, they died out so quick no one even knows they existed), so it's on your shoulders to justify your ideology before trying to question our "ideology."
>You're the ones insisting that everyone else changes behavior.
As is the case with any group of people who have an opposing view. That's the whole point of discussion, to put your perspective out there and see how people react and hopefully start to see things your way.
>Your intent is to impose a specific ethical code on others
Actually, I would argue that this ethical code is already in most people, but they've been raised in a way so as not to realize it. When someone sees an injured animal, they don't run over, pounce on it, and devour it raw. They try to help the animal. Many people own pets that they love as if they were part of their own family. At the same time, they just take meat eating as a given because that's how they were raised, and don't see eating animals for what it is. This may be why veganism sparks such heated debate; by talking about the issue, you make people have to think about what they're doing.
Does that apply to you today? Walk down to the dry goods aisle and buy some beans. Before you press this point, remember that humans have also practiced cannibalism, so my earlier hypothetical question is actually real
> Simple biology is, we are born to eat meat. >All I know is, we are born to eat meat
Alright, can you clarify a bit what you mean by born to do it? Do you mean we're born with the ability to do it and therefore we ought to, or that eating meat is an essential thing our entire phsyiology is designed around? I'd argue that we're clearly more designed for plant foods and that eating meat may actually be bad for your health, which is another important issue around meat consumption.
>>6448021 >Actually, I would argue that this ethical code is already in most people, but they've been raised in a way so as not to realize it.
No that's called moral conditioning. If a human kid was born on an island with no society to tell him what is right and wrong he would grow up probably eating all sorts of animals. Even domesticated animals like dogs and cats.
>>6448001 Oh, just like how vegans are often deficient in many basic nutrients and suffer from many diet related illnesses as well? http://www.medicinenet.com/vegetarian_and_vegan_diet/related-conditions/index.htm
Man knows its wrong to kill his fellow man, however, the devils in the details.
You want to know why its wrong on a societal level? When men were few, and the world was young, killing your fellow man meant one less person to help hunt, to help defend against aggressive neighbors, etc. Not killing your neighbor means societal stability, and cultures who practiced it survived while those that did not failed or adopted it.
On an evolutionary level, not killing your fellow species is beneficial to the overall survival of the species, our tendency to not kill each other when we fight unarmed reflects this.
If you want to know why its morally wrong, ask a priest, rabbi, imam, shaman, philosopher etc.
If you, at a personal level, don't see whats wrong with offing another human being, then perhaps it'd be best to consult a psychiatrist...
>>6448031 The problem with meat is that we eat too much of it. Too much meat + a sedentary lifestyle leads to problems. There was never problems with eating meat years ago because people had to work to catch their prey and they ate small portions. Now we have lardasses who can go down to the quik-e-mart and buy a grease filled burger for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and never exercise which would in turn cause heart problems and all sorts of other problems.
The problem isn't meat, it's our lifestyles and the quantity of meat we consume. I could say the same about vegan lifestyles. Most vegans have many many vitamin deficiencies and half to rely on taking supplements to fit it, and even supplements aren't as good as the real thing.
Why deprave your body of such nutrients because of your moral conditioning? If we didn't have supplements, vegans would die a lot faster than people who eat meat. Let's face it, veganism is a belief and wouldn't be able to exist without all the technology of today. They would all be weak from low amounts of protein and vitamin deficiencies while people with a well rounded diet would do just fine.
>>6448021 >I would argue that this ethical code is already in most people Don't kill animals for food? Welp, you've got tens of thousands of years of human history to contend with you if believe that most people have this innate set of ethics that no one actually believes in.
> When someone sees an injured animal, they don't run over, pounce on it, and devour it raw. No, but they might give it a mercy-kill, and refuse to waste that valuable nutrition. Many people have hit a deer, reported it to the game warden, and brought it home for food before. It's so common that there are rules for this.
>Many people own pets that they love as if they were part of their own family. Which has almost nothing to do with the practice of eating meat.
>At the same time, they just take meat eating as a given because that's how they were raised And also instinct, and myriad other reasons.
>and don't see eating animals for what it is. Which is... eating animals. Your argument is that people who eat animals don't know they're eating animals?
What you're really dancing over is your very definite ideology. Your assumption is that if people would only "think about what they're doing" (they do), they would come around to your way of thinking (some do, most don't). That is the classic line of the ideologue. Many a communist, libertarian, etc. have felt the same way.
A well rounded diet is miles better than a diet full of meat or a vegan diet. Just because you know some guy who eats red meat every single day doesn't mean all meat is inherently bad. I can't believe how stupid vegans are.
Did you even look at that list? Obesity? Lung Cancer? High blood pressure? These are things a vegan or vegetarian CAN have just like anyone else, but they have much lower rates of many of these illnesses.
>Man knows its wrong to kill his fellow man,
Well someone men claim otherwise, why are they wrong, and why is your position so comfortable?
>You want to know why its wrong on a societal level? When men were few, and the world was young, killing your fellow man meant one less person to help hunt, to help defend against aggressive neighbors,
And on an individual level, doing things we normally consider immoral can come with great benefits. If killing someone didn't benefit a person in some way, there'd be no murder.
I'm not arguing that killing another person is okay, I'm trying to see where your logic goes between the idea that killing is wrong and that killing is right. I see this kind of argument as "I can do anything I want to other creatures and it's morally correct, but nobody should be doing those same things to me because that would be immoral." I find that self-serving.
This certainly FEELS good, but the closest we have to scientific support for this kind of argument is "people who eat less meat have less disease," which comes along with of "people who eat no meat have even less disease." It's a misconception that vegans have to take a bunch of supplements, but I would agree that vitamin B12 is a must (though even non-vegans are advised to take that, as well as vitamin D), which, if you understand what the vitamin is, you understand isn't really a matter of diet. Any other supplement someone chooses to take would have to do with the rest of their personal diet. Hell, I've seen meat eaters take FIBER supplements. That just sounds crazy to me.
>>6448021 >This may be why veganism sparks such heated debate; by talking about the issue, you make people have to think about what they're doing.
Personally it pisses me off because vegans are self-entitled cunts who think they have a higher moral ground than anyone who eats meat. They don't look at facts. They just spout beliefs that they hold from the moral conditioning they received while growing up. Then they try to move the goalposts and start throwing out "CANCER AND HEART DISEASE THOUGH" and instead of blaming the person who eats 10 portions of red meat every day they blame the meat (not to mention fish and most birds DON'T have high risks of causing either, like red meat). Then when people point out that vegans have vitamin deficiencies they say >>6448066 "Did you even look at that list? Obesity? Lung Cancer? High blood pressure? These are things a vegan or vegetarian CAN have just like anyone else" well no fucking duh m8, everyone can get cancer and heart disease too. "but they have much lower rates of many of these illnesses."  Also vitamin deficiencies lead to other things as well like a lower level of brain and muscle function.
tl;dr Vegans only nitpick facts that are in their favor and blame meat for the way some lardass eats. They are the most biased and stupid people who even refute years and years of culture and biology and just throw morals at you, like they mean something.
Vegans don't get me mad because they make me feel insecure about the way I eat. They make me mad because they are biased brickwalls brainwashed into believing the stupidest shit. I bet you are also a fat sympathizer, trans sympathizer, otherkin, tumblr faggot.
>Don't kill animals for food? Welp, you've got tens of thousands of years of human history
And that brings us back to the fact that our ancestors also killed and ate other humans. Are we to assume that humans also don't innately believe that killing fellow humans is wrong?
What I'm saying about people not realizing they're eating animals is that the animals they see every day aren't what they picture the steak or the chicken breast on their plate came from. Many people would tell you that they love animals and would never hurt one, but then they buy a hunk of meat at the grocery store from an animal whose death they paid for. When slaughterhouse videos are leaked, people are outraged and sickened, but when they can't see what's going on, they continue to buy and eat.
I bet the vegans posting ITT are just a year or so away from b12 deficiency, and the permanent brain damage that comes with it.
Also, riddle me this vegans: Why does cooked meat smell so damn good?
I propose an experiment, wherein several groups will be exposed to various food related odors, and won't be told as to what the food cooking is. The groups will then be asked to judge the smells. With a group of vegetarians, vegans, and pescetarians, with the control being a group of regular people.
My intuition tells me that they would perceive the aromas of cooking meat to be appealing.
>Personally it pisses me off because vegans are self-entitled cunts who think they have a higher moral ground than anyone who eats meat.
I don't consider that real criticism, that just sounds insecure. In their eyes, you're doing something wrong. You can ignore their judgement or you can change your actions. Hell, that's what most of them did. Calling them biased doesn't make a lot of sense because most of them weren't raised that way. They were like you, then were able to get over their meat eating bias and change their mind in light of the arguments.
Meatless diets are gaining a lot of notoriety lately for their potential health benefits. Some of these studies helped to inspire the largest healthcare company in the US to recommend a vegan diet to all of their patients. Having lean, healthy people with low rates of disease saves them money.
The moral argument is just one facet. The health argument is at least as strong if not stronger, and the environmental argument is overwhelming. The latter two had more of an impact on me personally, and because of that I decided to change the way I do things. The moral argument comes after you stop eating animals, because then you don't have to justify what you're doing anymore and you can think more rationally about the issue
>>6448132 Any diet in which you can't receive a nutrient vital to brain functionality without external supplements renders said diet moot.
I could just as easily link you dozens of articles illustrating that a normal diet is healthy, only I don't need to. This appeal to authority you are now doing by linking assorted materials in mass, when you yourself couldn't be assed to cite anything from them just further illustrates that point.
Maybe you're already suffering from vitamin b12 deficiency, symptoms include: Numbness and tingling in the hands and feet. Difficulty walking. Muscle weakness. Irritability. Memory loss. Dementia. Depression. Psychosis.
>I could just as easily link you dozens of articles illustrating that a normal diet is healthy, only I don't need to.
Relative to what? Most of those diets show vegetarian or vegan diets against non-vegetarian diets. Lower rates of heart disease, obesity, hyptertension, diabetes, cancer, and on. Even within non-vegetarian diets, the healthiest diets that include meat are diets that are very low in meat, like the mediterranean diet.
I take a B12 pill though, as all people should, since meat apparently isn't a very bio-available source of B12
If you want to reduce your risk of dementia though, you might want to consider giving up meat
>>6448149 >Even within non-vegetarian diets, the healthiest diets that include meat are diets that are very low in meat, like the mediterranean diet. This is based on flawed methodology where they found murrilards raised on corn products to have higher incidents of heart disease than meds and the Japanese.
The finns for instance have a diet very rich in meats and have as low rates of heart disease as the meds and japs.
>>6448149 Red Meat (Beef) Vitamin B12 in 100g 3oz Serving (85g) Per Medallion (34g) 6.0μg (100% DV) 5.1μg (85% DV) 2.0μg (34% DV) Lamb is also High in Vitamin B12 with (45% DV) per 3oz serving cooked.
100% of your daily value.
Shellfish (Cooked Clams) Vitamin B12 in 100g 3oz (85g) 20 small clams (190g) 98.9μg (1648% DV) 84.1μg (1401% DV) 187.9μg (3132% DV) Other Shellfish High in Vitamin B12 (%DV per 3oz serving cooked): Oysters (408%), and Mussels (340%)
Fish (Mackerel) Vitamin B12 in 100g 3oz Serving (85g) Per Fillet (88g) 19.0μg (317% DV) 16.2μg (269% DV) 16.7μg (279% DV) Other Fish High in Vitamin B12 (%DV per 3oz serving cooked): Smoked Salmon (257%), Herring (186%), Tuna (154%), Canned Sardines (126%) and Trout (106%).
I suppose cherry picking information is a vegans forte, seeing that its how you maintain your cognitive dissonance.
Those Adventist studies were performed in a health-conscious community in Loma Linda, California, which is a blue zone. It's not comparing Americans to other countries, and I don't see what corn has to do with it.
Not long ago, Finland had the highest rates of heart disease in the world. The Finnish government teamed up with the World Health Organization to perform a large (and successful) 25-year diet and lifestyle intervention, getting people to lower their meat and dairy intake and eat more plants
You may not be understanding the word "bioavailable." To quote the article
>Nearly two-fifths of the U.S. population may be flirting with marginal vitamin B12 status if the population of Framingham, Mass., is any indication. >Oddly, the researchers found no association between plasma B12 levels and meat, poultry, and fish intake, even though these foods supply the bulk of B12 in the diet. “It’s not because people aren’t eating enough meat,” Tucker said. “The vitamin isn’t getting absorbed.” >The researchers also expected to find some connection between dietary intake and plasma levels, even though other studies found no association. And they did find a connection. Supplement use dropped the percentage of volunteers in the danger zone--plasma B12 below 185 pmol/L--from 20 percent to 8.
Is anything I'm saying rubbing off on you or are you set in your ways?
>>6448173 That article is stating that they didn't know a cause for the deficiency, as apparently it wasn't being absorbed. That could be any number of things that could inhibit the absorption of it, whats your point? "If only they had been eating a vegan diet where they received no b12 to begin with!" ?
The point is B12 supplementation is a good idea for everyone since meat's not a reliable, easily-absorbed source, and B12 doesn't make a good excuse to eat meat. Now that the thread's died down, I'm going to head off to sleep. Glad to talk to you tonight, bro.
>>6448194 You've been talking to like 6 different people. Also if b12 wasn't readily available everyone before vitamins would have been depressed, weak, barely functioning human beings with deepening psychosis.
>>6448231 I don't understand this pyramid. The whole point is to have the base be the biggest and the tip be the smallest but on here the higher it goes, the fatter the layers get so it seems like they all have the same area, just different dimensions.
>>6448001 Eating other men is repulsive to me, because of natural selection against such behaviour. There is no benefit.
Eating animals is highly pleasurable to my senses and increases my total life happiness. I don't want to end up in n old folks home, relying on others to wash off the caked feces and change my diaper anyways. Even disregarding that, trading a few years of my life for the pleasure of eating meat seems like a fair deal to me.
>>6448262 >I slapped him on the face because he was choking
Literally what the fuck? If an animal is choking you either heimlech by pushing in just under the ribs or you stick your fingers down it's throat to try and loosen the blockage. Who the fuck slaps choking pet? Who the fuck would slap a choking anything?
People should be obligated to take some tests and get a license for pet ownership. This is just insane and I can't believe how deluded those people are "My pet's healthy and happy. Sure they threw up their breakfast (avocado and bell peppers) but that's just because they just LOVE their vegan diet so much and are just sleeping all day but that's just their character lol"
our brains evolved due to a high protein diet that initially came from being an omnivore - all apes are omnivores.
Humans then developed greater mental capacity by eating raw shellfish ect. Once we discovered fire and learned to cook, learned animal husbandry, made cheese ect we were unstoppable.
If we never ate meat we wouldn't exist. We aren't clearly designed for plant food, this is a stupid thing to say. If we were our eyes would be on the side of our head, for seeing predators, we would have long legs for running away and wouldn't need hands, so we would have hooves.
>>6447988 >There were obviously people who held the belief that eating meat is immoral, it just wasn't a large movement like it is today. >>6448337 >>being a common, animalistic bottom feeder >Congrats if you do ever make it to the top.
Are you retarded? I just gave an example why >>6447988 was spouting bullshit while trying to actually refute an appeal to nature fallacy like a retard and you call me a bottom feeder?
As for the top level of the pyramid, I'm already there.
My morality is of an Epicurian nature. I focus on optimizing the tradeoff between life joy/life duration.
Life joy would probably plummet past 80, as I'm a type-1 diabetic and I'll probably go blind, numb in the dick and I'll lose a few toes. Diabetic neuropathy will make it so that a nurse will have to wash the caked-on shit off my ass and change my adult diapers.
Now the way I see it, I could go vegan and live another 10 years in misery, or I could eat delicious meat and die of a heart attack at 70.
If you are going to cite studies, please try and at least be a bit critical. 13 participants in each group. Self report mood scales. 2 weeks unsupervised dieting. Using a hideous mix of statistical tests, using ANOVA with non parametric data. ..
This study is an absolute joke
Or at least read the study you're citing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8327020
There was no significant difference in the incidence of dementia in the vegetarian versus meat-eating unmatched subjects. There was no obvious explanation for the difference between the two substudies, although the power of the unmatched sub-study to detect an effect of 'heavy' meat consumption was unexpectedly limited. There was a trend towards delayed onset of dementia in vegetarians in both substudies.
>2015 >not enjoying meat, fish and dairy as a part of a balanced diet Its like you want a malnourished brain, and to have your bones easily fractured by not getting enough vitamin K2.
Also, I don't imagine that being a vegan is something that can exist outside of our modern society, you didn't get to eat veggies out of season before modern conveniences, and were forced to eat seasonally. Ultimately its an impractical diet that will cease to exist if things were to get rough.
do you know what unmatched means? unmatched statistics could compare dementia rates in 80 year olds of one diet versus 30 year olds in another. when matched for age, sex and zip code (social factors), vegetarians had half the dementia risk, and longer term vegetarians had 1/3 the rates compared to meat eating people.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.