Carnivore diet been doing great

[Michael569]

5 hours ago, Emerald said:

I've posted the Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence below so that you can understand better what constitutes real evidence when you're making a claim of truth about something.

 

Posting something like this on this particular forum is a completely futile act as much as I agree with you that this is a a strong argument. The nuances of how profound this is and the 100+ years of academic work that went into putting the hierarchy of evidence together are completely lost here. 

Its not an uphill battle. It is Leonidas taking his 300 Spartans charging up a mountain where Xerxes and 500 thousand Persians await with rolling rocks, catapults and archers.  

Edited May 21 by Michael569

[integral]

2 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Posting something like this on this particular forum is a completely futile act as much as I agree with you that this is a a strong argument. The nuances of how profound this is and the 100+ years of academic work that went into putting the hierarchy of evidence together are completely lost here. 

It’s not an uphill battle. It is Leonidas taking his 300 Spartans charging up a mountain where Xerxes and 500 thousand Persians await with rolling rocks, catapults and archers.  

Why are you supporting her when her position is a extremist vegan position outside the scope of what science says?

If she had held any normal vegan position this conversation wouldn’t have happened.

The science does not say 99% of people can be a vegan with some edge cases.

Literally, it’s not happening.

 

A “normal” evidence-based vegan stance is: “With planning, appropriate supplementation, and monitoring, vegan diets can be safe and health-promoting for many but not necessarily all people.”

^^^^ This is what her position should be and what science says

More importantly, the vegan mortality rate decrease is equivalent to omnivores with a well planned diet excluding red meat. which she extremistly rejected as that there’s no evidence. And of course there is.

She also extremistly stated that no other diet is proven healthy by science. No evidence anywhere.

This person has no understanding of science. Then she will claim I’m straw Manning her when I’m not.

Edited May 21 by integral

[AION]

This thread in a nutshell 

 

Edited May 21 by AION

[Basman]

One's diet is more than just about health for the majority of people.

Since a vegan diet sacrifices so much convenience, culture and taste and is primarily driven by intrinsic values, it is unlikely for many people to go vegan when an omnivorous diet is sufficiently healthy. Especially if they don't share the egalitarian values of vegans.

You could argue that people are actually vegan because they don't actually like the prospect of animals getting hurt but it's quiet normal for people to hold contradictory views. Everyone agrees on paying taxes, especially taxing rich people, but nobody actually likes to pay taxes and they celebrate when they get a tax refund from the state once a year. People might not like animals getting hurt but they are content not thinking about it as they buy another frozen pizza. They like animals but they like hot dogs more.

[Michael569]

2 hours ago, integral said:

Why are you supporting her when her position is a extremist vegan position outside the scope of what science says?

If she had held any normal vegan position this conversation wouldn’t have happened.

The science does not say 99% of people can be a vegan with some edge cases.

Literally, it’s not happening.

 

A “normal” evidence-based vegan stance is: “With planning, appropriate supplementation, and monitoring, vegan diets can be safe and health-promoting for many but not necessarily all people.”

^^^^ This is what her position should be and what science says

More importantly, the vegan mortality rate decrease is equivalent to omnivores with a well planned diet excluding red meat. which she extremistly rejected as that there’s no evidence. And of course there is.

She also extremistly stated that no other diet is proven healthy by science. No evidence anywhere.

This person has no understanding of science. Then she will claim I’m straw Manning her when I’m not.

I don't care too much about taking part in this conversation, my response was purely zoomed on the graphic she shared. As far as I understand Emerald's position is in defence of vegan ethics which I agree with. 

All I said is that I don't think there is particular use of sharing these sorts of graphics on this forum because this is not the place and there is a general trend of selective science denialism hiding behind selective non duality (until that no longer becomes convenient). 

Edited May 21 by Michael569

[integral]

19 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

All I said is that I don't think there is particular use of sharing these sorts of graphics because this is not the place 

The comment that you made implies that her sharing this shows a higher level of understanding of science that the other people in this forum are not aware of. Which I disagree, knowing the most basic aspect of the science pyramid that you learn in high school  does not mean you understand science at any high level.

I agree that a bunch of non-dual spiritual people don’t know science… I’m in the middle of a debate so you saying that implies she has some deep understanding of science

Edited May 21 by integral

[Jannes]

3 hours ago, integral said:

Why are you supporting her when her position is a extremist vegan position outside the scope of what science says?

If she had held any normal vegan position this conversation wouldn’t have happened.

The science does not say 99% of people can be a vegan with some edge cases.

Literally, it’s not happening.

 

A “normal” evidence-based vegan stance is: “With planning, appropriate supplementation, and monitoring, vegan diets can be safe and health-promoting for many but not necessarily all people.”

^^^^ This is what her position should be and what science says

More importantly, the vegan mortality rate decrease is equivalent to omnivores with a well planned diet excluding red meat. which she extremistly rejected as that there’s no evidence. And of course there is.

She also extremistly stated that no other diet is proven healthy by science. No evidence anywhere.

This person has no understanding of science. Then she will claim I’m straw Manning her when I’m not.

 

What are people missing that they cant get from a planned, monitored and supplemented vegan diet?

 

I see people with certain health issues like Leo with his gut microbiome problem cant be vegan and there are likely some other health issues which make a vegan diet unhealthy so thats a few.

And many people in the world dont have access to the whole spectrum of plant foods so there are limitations on those people as well.

 

But what is your regular Joe who is lucky living in a first world country having access to a Walmarkt and Amazon missing?

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

A glass of milk a day keeps the veganism debate away

[Emerald]

10 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Posting something like this on this particular forum is a completely futile act as much as I agree with you that this is a a strong argument. The nuances of how profound this is and the 100+ years of academic work that went into putting the hierarchy of evidence together are completely lost here. 

Its not an uphill battle. It is Leonidas taking his 300 Spartans charging up a mountain where Xerxes and 500 thousand Persians await with rolling rocks, catapults and archers.  

Very true. You'd hope for different on a forum about developing a more holistic epistemology.

It seems like people really misunderstand what it means to think holistically and to develop a robust epistemology.

And instead of integrating wisdom of the scientific method into their framework, they want to chuck it out whenever it comes to ideas they want to protect.

And then, they just reframe it as holistic thinking and "criticizing science from above", when they are actually criticizing science from below.

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Jannes said:

 

What are people missing that they cant get from a planned, monitored and supplemented vegan diet?

 

I see people with certain health issues like Leo with his gut microbiome problem cant be vegan and there are likely some other health issues which make a vegan diet unhealthy so thats a few.

And many people in the world dont have access to the whole spectrum of plant foods so there are limitations on those people as well.

 

But what is your regular Joe who is lucky living in a first world country having access to a Walmarkt and Amazon missing?

100%

[integral]

4 hours ago, Jannes said:

What are people missing that they cant get from a planned, monitored and supplemented vegan diet?

I see people with certain health issues like Leo with his gut microbiome problem cant be vegan and there are likely some other health issues which make a vegan diet unhealthy so thats a few.

And many people in the world dont have access to the whole spectrum of plant foods so there are limitations on those people as well.

But what is your regular Joe who is lucky living in a first world country having access to a Walmarkt and Amazon missing?

So first you're asking if someone eats an amazing structured diet that gets tested and monitored by professionals and takes supplements what are they missing?

They shouldn't be missing anything of course! But is testing perfect? no. is supplementation perfect? And absorption perfect? no. is everything going to go perfectly for everyone? no. Can everyone tolerate every food perfectly? Of course not!  Most people are going to develop problems especially during the course of their entire life and then you have to do problem solving and adjust things and figure things out. Most the time diet isn't even the cause of someone's problem it's chronic stress poor sleep lack of exercise and a bunch of other things, Genetic issues, gut microbiome issues, sickness triggers, whatever that then develop, The older you get the probability that you can have a health problem gets higher and higher and higher and higher.

Then you're taking it the next step and you're adding veganism.

The theory says there should be nothing missing In a vegan body if perfectly supplemented and that the person can Absorb all the nutrients from all of these plant Foods and supplements without any issues for there entire life.

It's the same thing.

My whole point was there's diversity between people and some of them won't respond well to certain foods regardless and that some people won't respond well to certain supplements regardless and this should be intuitive for everyone and we shouldn't be debating to the end of time!

Quote

--o3

“What is Regular-Joe actually missing if he does a planned, monitored, supplemented vegan diet?”

Assurance that supplements = food long-term

B-12, DHA/EPA, iodine, calcium, iron can be normalised in blood tests. Cool.

But we don’t have 15-year RCTs showing that pill-B-12 + algae-DHA produce the same clinical end-points (fracture rate, cognitive aging, pregnancy outcomes) as food sources.

A pill fixes a biomarker; it doesn’t guarantee you solved the entire biochemical web.

Unknown co-factors we haven’t discovered yet
– Taurine, carnosine, creatine, collagen peptides, vitamin K2-MK-4 were all “non-essential” until we discovered what goes wrong without them.
– Odds are we haven’t found the last one. Removing an entire food kingdom bets that we have.

Genetic & microbiome non-converters (tail of the bell curve)
– FADS1/FADS2 SNPs: low ALA-to-DHA conversion; algae pills help but uptake is variable.
– TCN2 + FUT2 variants: poor B-12 transport/absorption even with supplements.
– MTHFR 677TT: needs pre-formed folate + B-12 synergy.
– Gut profiles that ferment high-FODMAP legume loads into IBS misery (Leo’s issue).
Regular Joe doesn’t know his SNPs or gut enterotype.

Life-stage edge-cases
– Pregnancy, infancy, adolescence, post-menopause, endurance athletics: all have spikes in iron, DHA, calcium, protein, or collagen demand.
– “Planned & monitored” sounds easy on Reddit; in the real world people forget pills, skip blood work, wing toddler menus.

Adherence reality
– Faunalytics survey: 84 % of self-declared veg*ns return to eating animal foods; half within a year. Top stated reason = health/energy.
– That’s not proof veganism “doesn’t work”; it is proof that most Regular Joes don’t—or won’t—maintain the textbook version you’re describing.

Digestive-tolerance bandwidth
– High-legume + high-whole-grain load means high FODMAP, lectin, phytate, oxalate, histamine exposure. Most people adapt; a visible minority flare (IBS, SIBO, joint pain, kidney stones). Again: tails of the curve.

Practical supply chain
– Even in the US you still get pockets with limited fresh-produce diversity, no algae-oil capsules, no B-12 methylcobalamin, no fortified plant milks.
– “Just order on Amazon” assumes disposable income, healthcare literacy, stable delivery, zero med-interactions.

 

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Basman said:

One's diet is more than just about health for the majority of people.

Since a vegan diet sacrifices so much convenience, culture and taste and is primarily driven by intrinsic values, it is unlikely for many people to go vegan when an omnivorous diet is sufficiently healthy. Especially if they don't share the egalitarian values of vegans.

The bolded point above is exactly right.

Most people don't go Vegan because of the convenience, habit (as an extension of culture), and taste.

They want to keep eating meat for pleasure.

They just bring up all kinds of unsubstantiated arguments to hide that basic truth from themselves... and they have to pretend that they either don't have a choice... or that their choice is justified in x, y, and z ways.

But it's all just a way to avoid the truth of their real motivations.

[Emerald]

15 hours ago, integral said:

OK, thank you that was an extremely important clarification, that this entire time I could not understand why we were miscommunicating.

—

A lack of opposing evidence does not make something true, this is a very clear logical fallacy.

More importantly, there is opposing evidence and when I showed it, you said well the WHO would not support this if it wasn’t healthy, which is another logical fallacy. For one the WHO is stage green strongly in favour of environmentalism and the second is they themselves in the guideline are not saying 99% of people can be vegan.

They are literally not saying it. I’m not trying to deceive you.

More importantly, there is more than just the WHO, the Mediterranean diet and various other diets all show massive decreases in cardiovascular disease that are comparative to veganism. In large scale studies.

The difference between my saying, "Sure, hypothetically, you might be correct that there probably are people who can't go Vegan for health reasons."

And you saying, "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health"...

is that my hypothetical was a concession to your perspective and me being charitable to your position.

I wasn't making a claim of truth myself. I was trying to level with you and find a point of agreement.

I was saying that (despite there being no evidence) you're probably partially right about your conjecture that "some people can't go Vegan without compromising their health".

But you ARE making a claim of truth when you say "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health".

And that is a completely baseless argument that is based in no evidence.

But you are not framing it as a hypothesis. You are framing it as the truth. And then pretending like my pointing out the lack of evidence is a radical perspective, when it's just an acknowledgment of the facts.

There simply is no evidence to that effect.

And if your claim that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health were true", there would be evidence (given that the human diet has been studied quite thoroughly) AND the WHO and ADA would not deem well-planned plant-based diets as nutritionally adequate.

These organizations would be required to give a health warning about that type of thing if your claim that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health" were true.

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Michael569 said:

All I said is that I don't think there is particular use of sharing these sorts of graphics on this forum because this is not the place and there is a general trend of selective science denialism hiding behind selective non duality (until that no longer becomes convenient). 

"Selective Science Denialism" is very succinct and well-put... and describes so many perspectives on this thread perfectly.

Everyone keeps trying to muddy the waters with all kinds of non-evidence and baseless conjectures.

And then, my experience is just... "How can I stick to the actual facts in these muddied waters where so many people have a strong motive to try to deny these facts and to maintain their paradigm?"

Edited May 21 by Emerald

[integral]

@Emerald I've been using AI from the very beginning of this conversation, Debunking myself, looking at all the science over and over again, I'm just going to post what I've been looking at

35 minutes ago, Emerald said:

There simply is no evidence to that effect.

First, a clarification about the “40 %”

My “40 %” was never presented as a measured statistic.
It was a thought-experiment to make a bell-curve vivid:

“Imagine 30 % thrive, 40 % struggle, the rest sit in the middle.”

That illustration can just as well be 10 %, 25 %, or 55 %.
The point was variance, not the exact number.

Reason the evidence looks “flat” How it masks diversity

1 . Small vegan samples in large cohorts EPIC-Oxford, UK-Biobank, Adventist Health all have ≤ 5–7 % strict vegans. When you divide that into age, sex, ethnicity and genotype, each cell is tiny—statistical power to detect subgroup failure collapses.Any tail of non-responders is swallowed by confidence intervals.

2 . Self-selection + healthy-user bias People who stay vegan in cohorts are the successes; those who felt unwell often drop out before the next survey and re-label as “omnivores.” The database records them as omnivores with bad biomarkers, not as “failed vegans.”Attrition makes the diet look safer than it may be for all starters.

3 . End-points skew to fatal outcomes All-cause mortality & CVD events are cheap to capture from registries. Non-fatal issues—IBS flares, chronic fatigue, amenorrhoea, stress fractures—require active follow-up, so most cohorts omit them.Quality-of-life failures don’t change the death curve, so they disappear in averaged results.

4 . Lack of genotype / microbiome stratification SNPs in FADS1/2, TCN2, FUT2, MTHFR, plus gut enterotypes, strongly influence B-12 transport, ALA→DHA conversion, iron absorption, FODMAP tolerance. Most epidemiology doesn’t genotype or sequence stools.Different genetic “buckets” get lumped together, producing one blended hazard ratio.

5 . Ethical & logistical limits on RCTs You’d need a 10–20-year randomised, supplement-controlled trial with thousands of participants forced to stay vegan or omnivore. No ethics board approves that; no agency funds it.Without randomisation, we rely on observational means that flatten heterogeneity.

6 . Publication & funding bias Nutrition funding often chases “plant-forward for sustainability.” Negative or ambiguous long-term supplementation trials are less likely to be funded or published.Null or adverse subgroup findings are under-reported, so meta-analyses can’t pool them.

Result

The literature is excellent at telling us the direction of the average trend (↓meat, ↑whole plants → ↓CVD).
It is poor at quantifying how many individuals fall off that curve once all animal foods are removed and lifelong reliance on supplements begins.

Why the WHO / ADA still say “a well-planned vegan diet can be adequate”

Their mandate is population guidance, not personalised precision nutrition.

They use the best data available—which show average vegan biomarkers and mortality comparable (or slightly better) when supplementation is assumed.

They hedge with caveats: “well-planned, appropriately supplemented, with monitoring.”
Those modifiers are implicit admissions that adequacy is conditional, not automatic.

What evidence would reveal the true proportion of “strugglers”

Large, long RCTs randomising diverse genotypes to omnivore vs. vegan + standard supplement protocol for ≥10 years, tracking non-fatal outcomes.

Precision-nutrition cohorts that tag every participant’s genome, microbiome, metabolome, then model response clusters.

Attrition-capture registries documenting why people abandon strict veganism (labs, symptoms, adherence fatigue).

Until then, the exact figure—whether 10 %, 25 %, or 40 %—remains unknown.
My only claim is epistemic: averages hide tails, and current methods aren’t designed to measure those tails accurately.

That’s why skepticism about “0 % animal foods works for 99 % of humans” is not anti-science; it’s an honest reading of what current science can and cannot show.

Why it survives rebuttal

A. Unwarranted extrapolation (appeal-to-extremes)Trend from high → medium → very-low meat intake is extended to the unmeasured zero-meat extreme, then propped up with a new intervention (supplements) never tested in the dataset.Every large cohort’s “lowest” meat quintile still consumed some animal food.Supplements were not standardised.→ Evidence base does not validate “0 g meat + pills” as the risk-minimum.

B. Fallacy of incomplete evidence (endpoint tunnel-vision)Using all-cause or CVD mortality alone and calling the diet “health-maximising,” while ignoring non-fatal morbidity (fractures, IBS, anaemia, thyroid, cognition, etc.).EPIC-Oxford vegans: +30 % total fractures, 2.3 × hip fractures—invisible in mortality tables.Multiple case–control studies show higher GI distress in some long-term veg*ns.→ Lower death risk can coexist with higher disability risk.

One-paragraph fusion

“Meta-analyses show a steady drop in CVD deaths as meat intake falls. Great—but two logical jumps remain:
(1) Extrapolation jump: the data stop at ‘very low’ meat, yet the conclusion leaps to ‘zero meat + lifetime supplements is best,’ even though that combo wasn’t measured.
(2) Endpoint jump: the same papers track only deaths, so they miss non-fatal hits to healthspan (fractures, IBS, anaemias). Both jumps have to be cleared before anyone can claim universal superiority for a 100 % plant diet.”

Covering those two jumps handles both the “direction-to-extreme” problem and the “death ≠ healthspan” problem in one sweep.

Edited May 21 by integral

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, integral said:

@Emerald I've been using AI from the very beginning of this conversation, Debunking myself, looking at all the science over and over again, I'm just going to post what I've been looking at

First, a clarification about the “40 %”

My “40 %” was never presented as a measured statistic.
It was a thought-experiment to make a bell-curve vivid:

“Imagine 30 % thrive, 40 % struggle, the rest sit in the middle.”

So, you concede that your claim that "40% of people can't to Vegan without compromising their health" is just a conjecture based in how bell-curves generally work... and not actual evidence.

13 minutes ago, integral said:

 

Reason the evidence looks “flat” How it masks diversity

1 . Small vegan samples in large cohorts EPIC-Oxford, UK-Biobank, Adventist Health all have ≤ 5–7 % strict vegans. When you divide that into age, sex, ethnicity and genotype, each cell is tiny—statistical power to detect subgroup failure collapses.Any tail of non-responders is swallowed by confidence intervals.

2 . Self-selection + healthy-user bias People who stay vegan in cohorts are the successes; those who felt unwell often drop out before the next survey and re-label as “omnivores.” The database records them as omnivores with bad biomarkers, not as “failed vegans.”Attrition makes the diet look safer than it may be for all starters.

3 . End-points skew to fatal outcomes All-cause mortality & CVD events are cheap to capture from registries. Non-fatal issues—IBS flares, chronic fatigue, amenorrhoea, stress fractures—require active follow-up, so most cohorts omit them.Quality-of-life failures don’t change the death curve, so they disappear in averaged results.

4 . Lack of genotype / microbiome stratification SNPs in FADS1/2, TCN2, FUT2, MTHFR, plus gut enterotypes, strongly influence B-12 transport, ALA→DHA conversion, iron absorption, FODMAP tolerance. Most epidemiology doesn’t genotype or sequence stools.Different genetic “buckets” get lumped together, producing one blended hazard ratio.

5 . Ethical & logistical limits on RCTs You’d need a 10–20-year randomised, supplement-controlled trial with thousands of participants forced to stay vegan or omnivore. No ethics board approves that; no agency funds it.Without randomisation, we rely on observational means that flatten heterogeneity.

6 . Publication & funding bias Nutrition funding often chases “plant-forward for sustainability.” Negative or ambiguous long-term supplementation trials are less likely to be funded or published.Null or adverse subgroup findings are under-reported, so meta-analyses can’t pool them.

Result

The literature is excellent at telling us the direction of the average trend (↓meat, ↑whole plants → ↓CVD).
It is poor at quantifying how many individuals fall off that curve once all animal foods are removed and lifelong reliance on supplements begins.

None of this supports the actual claims you've made on this thread.

It is just an explanation of how "What I said could potentially be true under these circumstances."

But it still isn't viable evidence to support your claims about there being a high percentage of people who can't go Vegan.

You probably put into AI some kind of prompt like, "Under what circumstances could it possibly be true that dietary diversity (such that some people cannot go Vegan without compromising their health) is under-represented within the repertoire of scientific studies and meta-analyses that exist."

19 minutes ago, integral said:

 

Why the WHO / ADA still say “a well-planned vegan diet can be adequate”

Their mandate is population guidance, not personalised precision nutrition.

They use the best data available—which show average vegan biomarkers and mortality comparable (or slightly better) when supplementation is assumed.

Yes, and based on the best data currently available, they have put out a public statement that a well-planned Vegan diet is adequate for all phases of life.

And they wouldn't put out this "population guidance" if there was a large number of people who are not capable of going Vegan without compromising their health.

Keep in mind that these health organizations are going to be thinking of ways to minimize public harm as much as possible. And if there was evidence that Vegan diets were harmful to to large swaths of the population, these organizations would not take that risk.

22 minutes ago, integral said:

 

Large, long RCTs randomising diverse genotypes to omnivore vs. vegan + standard supplement protocol for ≥10 years, tracking non-fatal outcomes.

Precision-nutrition cohorts that tag every participant’s genome, microbiome, metabolome, then model response clusters.

Attrition-capture registries documenting why people abandon strict veganism (labs, symptoms, adherence fatigue).

Until then, the exact figure—whether 10 %, 25 %, or 40 %—remains unknown.
My only claim is epistemic: averages hide tails, and current methods aren’t designed to measure those tails accurately.

That’s why skepticism about “0 % animal foods works for 99 % of humans” is not anti-science; it’s an honest reading of what current science can and cannot show.

Once again, I was NOT the one making an overall health claim about diets beyond what is accounted for in the evidence!

I made that claim that, "Plant-based diets are associated with lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality." because that is supported by actual evidence.

But I never made a claim that "the Vegan diet works for 99% of humans."

I was saying that there's NO EVIDENCE that exists that "some people can't go Vegan without compromising their health"... but that I hypothetically concede somewhat to your point that there probably are some edge cases where some people can't go Vegan that aren't currently accounted for in the evidence that exists.

I was saying, "Your claim has no evidence. But I'd imagine hypothetically that you're not 100% wrong. There probably are some edge cases where people can't go Vegan without compromising their health."

And you keep using my concession to your point as an indication that I'm making broad-sweeping dietary claims... when I am just stating that your dietary claims are baseless and have no evidence to support them.

But I never made that claim... it was just a hypothesis. And I never once said "1%" when I made that hypothetical concession. That was you putting those words in my mouth.

So, stop strawmanning me and acting like I'm making claims that I'm not actually making!

But at least in the bolded line above, you finally admit that there is no basis for your claim that "40% of people can't go Vegan", which is the entire reason I'm arguing with you in the first place.

You're pulling random claims of truth out of your hat that are unsubstantiated. And then you're getting up in arms and calling me a radical when I say, "There is no evidence for your claim."

36 minutes ago, integral said:

Why it survives rebuttal

A. Unwarranted extrapolation (appeal-to-extremes)Trend from high → medium → very-low meat intake is extended to the unmeasured zero-meat extreme, then propped up with a new intervention (supplements) never tested in the dataset.Every large cohort’s “lowest” meat quintile still consumed some animal food.Supplements were not standardised.→ Evidence base does not validate “0 g meat + pills” as the risk-minimum.

B. Fallacy of incomplete evidence (endpoint tunnel-vision)Using all-cause or CVD mortality alone and calling the diet “health-maximising,” while ignoring non-fatal morbidity (fractures, IBS, anaemia, thyroid, cognition, etc.).EPIC-Oxford vegans: +30 % total fractures, 2.3 × hip fractures—invisible in mortality tables.Multiple case–control studies show higher GI distress in some long-term veg*ns.→ Lower death risk can coexist with higher disability risk.

One-paragraph fusion

“Meta-analyses show a steady drop in CVD deaths as meat intake falls. Great—but two logical jumps remain:
(1) Extrapolation jump: the data stop at ‘very low’ meat, yet the conclusion leaps to ‘zero meat + lifetime supplements is best,’ even though that combo wasn’t measured.
(2) Endpoint jump: the same papers track only deaths, so they miss non-fatal hits to healthspan (fractures, IBS, anaemias). Both jumps have to be cleared before anyone can claim universal superiority for a 100 % plant diet.”

Covering those two jumps handles both the “direction-to-extreme” problem and the “death ≠ healthspan” problem in one sweep.

None of this proves your claims that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health".

Nor does it prove the claim that, "The Vegan diet is unhealthy." or any of the wide-sweeping dietary claims you've made on this thread.

It basically indicates that, statistically, if you want greater longevity, your best bet would be to minimize meat intake... but that Vegan diets correlate a 30% higher risk of hip fractures and "some" GI issues in longterm Vegans.

But if you aren't going to make the claim, "Omnivorous diets are unhealthy because of a higher risk of heart disease, stroke, and an earlier death."

You should be consistent and not make the claim, "Vegan diets are unhealthy because of a higher risk of hip fractures."

 

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

They want to keep eating meat for pleasure.

You can eat meat for more reasons than just pleasure. This kind of framing is quiet reductive and antagonizing and reflects the broader misanthropy of veganism, as being omnivores is part of our natural biology and culture.

You could for example care about animal welfare and still eat meat with the distinction that you don't see animals as equivalent to humans. You have to be ideologically inclined to at all consider veganism as it hinges on egalitarianism, which is inherently a tall order when speaking in generals, like what is healthy and right for people.

I think there's a certain degree of entitlement to these vegan debates when it turns into "being right" metaphysically as a vegan. You could just disagree. You could also point out veganism still relies on destroying plant life in order to live. Arguably, to be truly vegan you have to photosynthesize.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Basman said:

You can eat meat for more reasons than just pleasure. This kind of framing is quiet reductive and antagonizing and reflects the broader misanthropy of veganism, as being omnivores is part of our natural biology and culture.

You could for example care about animal welfare and still eat meat with the distinction that you don't see animals as equivalent to humans. You have to be ideologically inclined to at all consider veganism as it hinges on egalitarianism, which is inherently a tall order when speaking in generals, like what is healthy and right for people.

I think there's a certain degree of entitlement to these vegan debates when it turns into "being right" metaphysically as a vegan. You could just disagree. You could also point out veganism still relies on destroying plant life in order to live. Arguably, to be truly vegan you have to photosynthesize.

If you genuinely see human pleasure, comfort, and convenience as more valuable and important than an animal's life and well-being, it makes sense that you wouldn't be Vegan... as you don't have Vegan values.

But people like to lie to themselves and think it's more complicated than, "I like eating meat and its convenient. So, I don't want to stop."

Certainly, there are people in the world who are dealing with food scarcity and food insecurity. And their motivations to eat meat and diary are survival-based.

But most of the time the reality is simple. People eat meat because they enjoy it. And they (in practice) prioritize that enjoyment over the animals' lives and wellbeing... even if they don't agree with doing so.

And it's fine if that's someone's true values are that they don't care about the well-being of animals. But a high number of people (maybe most) don't agree that human pleasure should be prioritized over an animal's life and well-being.

But recognizing this incongruence of values is difficult, because it is recognizing an areas where a lack of integrity exists. And allowing one's self to become aware of this lack of integrity feels uncomfortable.

Also, with regard to the bolded statement above about 'Veganism relying on destroying plant-life', meat-eaters and animal product consumers indirectly lead to more plant consumption than Vegans do. 

For example, for every one pound of beef that is produced, cows need to consume 16 lbs of grain to produce that over their lifetime.

So, if you want to "save the plants!"... then your best bet is to go Vegan.

[Princess Arabia]

@Natasha Tori Maru @ExploringRealityOk, I see. Both have similar views. The morality you speak about comes from a sense of right and wrong, I assume, which also comes from a sense of a higher purpose, which stems from a sense of hierarchy over yourselves which I suspect is God, which I suspect to whom this sense of morality subjugated you into subordinance over it. So, this hierarchy which gave you free will and choice by your admission, can bring upon these animals whatever it chooses, but you as a subordinate under it (morality-based) cannot "will and choose" from this free will given to you to do as it does. In other words, it can use itself to kill animals because it's not personal but you are personally judged and condemned if you do with the free will it has bestowed upon you. Is that right?

Edited May 21 by Princess Arabia

[Basman]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

If you genuinely see human pleasure, comfort, and convenience as more valuable and important than an animal's life and well-being, it makes sense that you wouldn't be Vegan... as you don't have Vegan values.

This implies a binary of either you care about animals or you don't. It's a false dichotomy. You could care about general animal well-being but not see them as equivalent to humans, not adopting the utilitarian framing all together. You could love animals and raise them for meat on a farm, for example. This is how many farmers operate. You could care about dogs and cats but not so much for cows and pigs. This is how many suburban folk operate.

It's a pretty big jump in logic if you think about it. Why does it follow that caring about animals then means that they are entitled to the same rights as humans?

29 minutes ago, Emerald said:

...So, if you want to "save the plants!"... then your best bet is to go Vegan.

This is wrong. The best way is to commit seppuku and seize to exist. The best thing for ecology would be for humanity to go completely extinct over night.

It is an inherent contradiction within an ideology that is all about self-denial for the sake of preservation to draw the line anywhere. Any line will necessarily be partial and reductive.