Why i am not a vegan ?

[carterfelder]

@integral What is in animal products that we cannot get from plants?

What is unhealthy about eating a well-planned and balanced, plant-exclusive diet?

Or, what is less healthy about the diet just mentioned compared to a nonvegan one that usually has significantly less fiber?

What about someone's genetics or microbiome makes it so that they have to have fiberless animal products in order to absorb what plants have anyways?

Thanks for responding.

27 minutes ago, integral said:

You don’t need to be a vegan to care about your health.

Eating discipline comes when you take responsibility for what comes into your body and that has nothing to do with going vegan or not.

Every vegan is naturally corrupted by their emotions and agenda. And it’s particularly bad because you’re not eating healthier than most people. It’s complete confirmation bias self-deception.

Vegans cannot see the full scope of the problem. That people have completely different genetics, different gut micro biomes, and it’s complex and you cannot just forced a specific diet onto people. It does not work in practice at scale.

When a vegan acknowledges this problem, they will have reached the next stage of their development. Then we could have a real discussion about real solutions to the problem and none of that, Is this naïve avoidance of meat. You will literally make the whole planet sick that’s how delusional you are.

 

[integral]

16 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

@integral What is in animal products that we cannot get from plants?

What is unhealthy about eating a well-planned and balanced, plant-exclusive diet?

Or, what is less healthy about the diet just mentioned compared to a nonvegan one that usually has significantly less fiber?

What about someone's genetics or microbiome makes it so that they have to have fiberless animal products in order to absorb what plants have anyways?

Thanks for responding.

Doesn’t work in practice

Doesn’t work in practice

Doesn’t work in practice

That about sums up every answer you will ever ask on this topic.

Edited May 18 by integral

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

55 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

What is in animal products that we cannot get from plants?

You can get everything you need, but in shittier quality, that basically sums it up

 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

27 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

Such as?

Proteins, heme iron, creatine, omega 3s... shall I go on? LOL

[carterfelder]

@NewKidOnTheBlock A balanced vegan diet provides adequate and complete protein from mainly legumes, grains and nuts; leafy greens and fortified foods provide adequate iron; creatine can be synthesized by the body or supplemented; and omega-3s are available in flax seeds, chia seeds, walnuts, and algae-based supplements.

[carterfelder]

@integral Oh, I didn't know you were the arbiter of objective truth.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

24 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

@NewKidOnTheBlock A balanced vegan diet provides adequate and complete protein from mainly legumes, grains and nuts; leafy greens and fortified foods provide adequate iron; creatine can be synthesized by the body or supplemented; and omega-3s are available in flax seeds, chia seeds, walnuts, and algae-based supplements.

A diet full of artificial supplement copes, inferior nutrient density and inferior bioavailability LOL go vegan, go weaken

[integral]

33 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

@NewKidOnTheBlock A balanced vegan diet provides adequate and complete protein from mainly legumes, grains and nuts; leafy greens and fortified foods provide adequate iron; creatine can be synthesized by the body or supplemented; and omega-3s are available in flax seeds, chia seeds, walnuts, and algae-based supplements.

30 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

@integral Oh, I didn't know you were the arbiter of objective truth.

You think one diet fits all… so your projecting

Only vegans speak in absolutes (insert Star Wars reference)

Edited May 18 by integral

[freddyteisen]

Munching on a juicy, medium-rare steak, from a grass fed regeneratively raised cow, cooked in organic butter, with a side of roasted potatoes and asparagus reading through these comments🤤😋

Edited May 18 by freddyteisen

[carterfelder]

@NewKidOnTheBlock Why would using supplements be a "cope?" What would make plant food nutritionally inferior and less bioavailable?

[carterfelder]

@integral I'm willing to be wrong if you can explain why, that's why I'm asking pertinent questions.

[Basman]

It's not even a question that excluding animal products is more nutritionally challenging from a purely health perspective, but the point of veganism isn't health first and foremost but taking a moral stance. If health was the first priority then including animal products in your diet is a no brainer. They are highly effective, assuming you make healthy choices.

[integral]

40 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

@integral I'm willing to be wrong if you can explain why, that's why I'm asking pertinent questions.

Most people that follow a well-planned vegan diet develop health problems within the first year if they get past that point they develop health problems around the 5-year Mark and then after that the 10 year mark then after that they're good because it worked and they're compatible with the diet.

| “Where’s the evidence that people who do it right for 10+ years actually thrive, and don’t quietly develop problems?”

| The answer is: That data is thin. We have case studies, small samples, and positive outcomes from health-conscious subgroups — but not definitive, large-scale proof.

Go on YouTube and watch people talk about the health problems they went through because of the vegan diet. Just keep watching these over and over and over again.

The point of this is to accustom the mind to see examples of how this potentially is not working at scale and that people have completely different genetics and dietary compatibilities and this doesn't just work for everyone blindly because science says so. 

I looked at all the studies that showed veganism well planned pregnancies produce no significant health risk to the child yet it doesn't follow long-term any of this.

Long-term is the only thing that matters here, and the studies do not go long enough.

Quote

✅ What it does say:

Vegan diets can be adequate in theory.

They tend to be protective against chronic diseases (heart disease, diabetes, obesity) in short-to-medium-term studies.

Nutrient shortfalls are well known: B12, DHA, iodine, iron, calcium, vitamin D, etc.

Nutritional status can be maintained long-term with proper monitoring and supplements — in principle.

❌ What it doesn't prove:

That veganism works long-term (20–40 years) in diverse populations.

That it works equally well across different genetics, microbiomes, life stages, or health conditions.

That all the people reporting health crashes after 2, 5, or 10 years were simply doing it “wrong.”

^^^ this is the right mindset to have when going into a vegan diet that illustrates the difficulty of the situation this is not a walk in the park. Its not a situation where anyone could just start doing this at 15 years old and you're just going to thrive on this. This is hard and it requires extensive testing and follow-ups multiple times a year.

When its this difficult it is very clear this is a challenging diet.

But the vegan Community does not want to hear this, they just go on and on of how simple it is.

Edited May 18 by integral

[integral]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

Yes , superior absorption for heme iron, granted. Also heme iron is superior when comsumed by people with iron deficiency anaemia, it raises level faster. Also granted. 

The problem with it is that heme is, in some way, probably harmful to the human cardiovascular system. 

Dietary intake of heme iron and risk of cardiovascular disease: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies - PubMed

 Heme iron intake was associated significantly with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and the pooled relative risk (RR) for each 1 mg/day increment was 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.01 to 1.14, I² = 59.7%). We also found evidence of a curvilinear association (P < 0.05 for non-linearity). In contrast, we found no association between CVD risk and dietary non-heme (0.98, 0.96 to 1.01, I² = 15.8%) or total iron (1.00, 0.94 to 1.06, I² = 30.4%). Subgroup analyses revealed that the association between heme iron intake and CVD risk was stronger among non-fatal cases (1.19, 1.07-1.33) and American patients (1.31, 1.11-1.56).

TLDNR 

For every mg of heme iron per day, the risk of CVD was increased by 7% in the cohort trial on 250 thousand participants . No such finding for non-heme iron or total iron (combined). For a reference, a single steak contains about 2-4 mg of heme iron 

And all 250,000 people were eating grass fed beef and a balanced, healthy non-processed food diet?

If all does people were eating McDonald everyday does that say iron intake is the problem? 😂

Variables not tracked:

Eat more fast food or ultra-processed meals

Eat fewer vegetables and fiber

Exercise less

Smoke or drink more

Have higher stress levels

Live in more polluted environments

Have worse sleep

Use more medications

So what you get is the averaging out of everyone’s genetics, microbiomes, and lifestyles and diversity into a single correlation. so that if 70% of people can only thrive on Hema iron you just don’t see it. If for 30% of people Heme iron avoidance made them sick. It wouldn’t show up in that study.

Most people in these cohorts were just eating processed junk, yet the data is treated as if it’s some clean verdict on a specific nutrient.

The result is a fractured epistemic signal, generalized, decontextualized, and misused to create sweeping rules for wildly different bodies.

That’s why contextual, individualized nutrition always wins over population-level generalizations.

Real TLDR:

A meta-analysis found that in a population of mostly junk-food eaters, each 1 mg/day increase in heme iron (often consumed with processed meat, fast food, and poor lifestyle habits) was associated with a 7% increase in relative risk for cardiovascular disease.

This tells us people eating more garbage had slightly more heart disease, not that heme iron itself causes it.

The study didn’t control for quality of diet, genetics, stress, sleep, or lifestyle,  it just averaged everything together and blamed the iron.

—-

It also only tracked cardiovascular problems, which is an obvious Blindspot, the people who avoided iron had other health problems… if it tracked every disease it would reveal that everyone is sick. So the conclusion is you eat unhealthy and you have an unhealthy lifestyle or you have bad genetics or your body isn’t properly adapted to our toxic environment outside of your control then you get sick. But instead, they blamed Iron in a myopic way.

Edited May 19 by integral

[integral]

@Michael569

The first problem is none of them are eating healthy meat this is sick meat found in grocery stores. Contributing it to iron doesn't make any sense there's so many factors, the difference between sick meat and healthy meat that's grass-fed is completely different. You're literally just consuming stress hormone and antibiotics. If  the argument is avoiding meat avoids toxins in meat then that's probably true. A lot of studies are showing processed meat creates a lot of problems.

The entire conversation we're having is that you take people eating a any diet that is well planned and structured and they're going to be healthy and you take anyone eating a poorly planed diet including the vegans and they're going to be unhealthy.

Quote

The NIH-AARP study included older adults aged 50 to 71 years at enrollment (between 1995 and 1996).

By the end of the 16-year follow-up period (2011), participants were between 66 and 87 years old.

128,524 deaths out of 536,969 participants.

23% of people die

Senior cohort snapshot

The study did not track whether the people who didn't die were actually healthy. The vegans could have had dementia and it's not part of the study.

People who did not eat red meat also had:

• Diabetes
• Severe inflammation
• Nutrient deficiencies
• Autoimmune conditions
• Depression or anxiety
• Cognitive decline
• Osteoporosis
• Or simply lived in a chronically unwell state

The study still found only a 7–10% relative risk increase in mortality for red meat. That’s a tiny signal one that could easily be statistical noise or residual lifestyle changes or Self-reporting biases.  And this is for a bunch of old people! 

For the fact that it's still garbage meat and not part of our discussion.

More importantly some of those people eating red meat didn't die and they might have avoided other diseases because of it but none of this is is part of the equation again it's averaging out everything If a person's genetics will allow them to live the longest on red meat this crucial information is just completely blurred out because you're doing this generalized study and creating generalized conclusions

It lacks the individual Tailoring that a diet should have, diets should be tailored to the person.

---

The whole problem here is there's no individuality and there's so many cofactors that are trying to demonize meat. The real final interpretation of all of this data is garbage food is bad.

 > There are some people whose genetics don't allow for veganism to work with them that doesn't matter how you get go about it, it just won't work out for them. At no point are they statistically better off avoiding meat

> Do you acknowledge the above sentence?

Edited May 19 by integral

[integral]

1 hour ago, Michael569 said:

You don't know that. Not every person is a McDonald's hamburger eater. Lot of people get their red meat from home-cooked beef stews, steaks, a variety of pasta dishes, etc. Many of those could be sourced from better quality areas so I can't comment on this because we don't know. 

Also, as far as I am aware, thre isn't a major consensus on grass fed being that superior that it becomes clinically relevant. There might be a slightly higher component of things like vitamin E and Omega 3 but overall, it hasn't been proven that it is better. 

It is more ethical, that's for sure. 

I was replying specifically on iron topic. You  jumped in and opened it up for a wider conversation so the burden of proof is on you now. So far you haven't proven anything

 

You're probably getting that in white meat and fish too, yet it showed benefit....why?

Sure but that's not what we are discussing here in this micro conversation 

 do you think a person with dementia would pass pre-screening for study participation? Like do you actually expect a person, who does not know their name, to be able to fill in a food frequency questionnaire? And understand it?

lmao 16 years after yes

where exactly did you see this? 

Seeing as 23% of them died and not all of them were eating red meat, So the other participants that were still alive obviously some percentage of them had to have problems and none of them are tracked.

Well, doing this sort of research on teenagers isn't going to make much sense since none of your subject participants actually develop CVD regardless of what they eat. Older people are , statistically, at higher risk of developing the outcomes you are interested in and are more reliable population sample.

You would have to track overall health and other metrics like intelligence something like that, stamina whatever, and not sickness

We just keep working with sickness in all of these studies instead of figuring out what is actually healthy

But that's not the point of the nutritional research. You have dietetics and nutritional therapy for person-to-person support. The point of the nutritional evidence is to understand the physiological impacts of different food groups (among other things) and be able to (within limits) minimise the influence of variables not studied.

The purpose of nutritional epidemiology is to help create public health guidelines through which individuals can receive personal support down the chain. You're derailing the conversation. 

It doesn't matter the theory does not work in practice because the way these studies are conducted creates incentives to look at the data in a very specific way.

The science has value but because there's so much conflicting everything you get people that are telling you to just eat 2 lb of lentils a day.

You can take this study and do backflips with it.

When working with someone the first question is well what's going to work for them and then to narrow in on something that ultimately works for their health.

You give them a general meal plan then when certain things don't work for them, they adjust, this is perfectly fine but what you're not doing is taking the theory and just applying it into practice blindly.

If these people don't feel good without meat in their body you're not just dogmatically telling them that they're going to die, clearly this has to be individuated

And that's precisely the point is that this study is an average and completely ignores individuation

I'm sorry but I can't take statements like this credibly. This is a typical bs on carnivore forums. "I don't understand it and I cant be bothered to read it so its all bs.

It's making General sweeping statements About meat and iron consumption because it's averaging everything

And I'm not advocating for carnivore lol

How does that help us any closer at all? First of all, what is "garbage food"

This study does a good job showing processed food is bad most of these studies are fairly decent when it comes to that but then they take it a step further and make a very strong suggestion to remove it entirely from the diet without the Nuance that some people need this

Even if I granted that, I don't see how that gets us any further. 

It's the most important factor, that if a study tells you that nuts increase lifespan that you can't just apply this to everyone. It's precisely not saying that you can now apply this to everyone

Let's say this study is showing a problem with heme iron consumption University without any individuality between anyone. That does not mean you can remove this crucial nutrient from the diet and simply supplement. 

It's like the studies that "prove" some ingredients in red wine will make you live longer, okay but that doesn't mean you should be drinking it.

You're taking something vital (iron) and then you're claiming that we should just remove this from the diet With Alternatives and supplementation

so what is the study really trying to tell us, that our foods create damage, but don’t we already know this. And this is useful information, but it does not mean the right strategy now in practice is we need to remove it and supplement?

Edited May 19 by integral

[D2sage]

Meat is king. Except pork because it is the lowest quality meat.

Hard to build muscles eating broccoli and avocado. But eating cow meat has the essentials that your muscle want to get those muscles growing.

 

The alzheimer brain is 90% deficient in acetylcholine neurotransmitter. <<---Brain chemical responsible for memory.

Food rich in acetylcholine are eggs, liver and meat.

Edited May 19 by D2sage

[Emerald]

20 hours ago, Basman said:

It's not even a question that excluding animal products is more nutritionally challenging from a purely health perspective, but the point of veganism isn't health first and foremost but taking a moral stance. If health was the first priority then including animal products in your diet is a no brainer. They are highly effective, assuming you make healthy choices.

I used to think the same thing when I first went Vegan about 9 years ago.

I went Vegan for ethical reasons. And then health-wise, I was like "a whole food Vegan or whole food omnivores diet are probably similarly healthy."

But then, a couple years ago, I actually looked into the research on how the consumption of animals and animal products are more likely to lead to the formation of plaques in the arterial walls compared to the consumption of plants... and how this leads to greater instances in heart disease and stroke.

And this is because animal products are higher in saturated fats compared to plant sources, where most plant sources (except coconut) tend to be low in saturated fat.

And given that heart disease and stroke are the biggest health-related killers, I no longer hold the belief that plant-based diets and ominivorous diets are equally healthy.

[Schizophonia]

I am not vegan because i don’t care about animals well being (admitting there is actually a objective world with things that happen outside) just like i don’t care about the Chinese worker who did my iPhone.

It’s not a priority in my karma.

And i actually have a karma in the opposite sense where veganism seems hard to follow and is linked to neurotic thinking.

Technically if you don’t have karma you would end up finish breatharian, and actually if really you don’t have any karma you wouldn’t be « alive » anyway, you would be nothing/everything.

What i reproach to some vegans, but even anti-vegans ; everyone pretending being in the « good side » for some reason, is tacitly pretending being not karmic.

But there is no « no karmic side »; it’s the illusion of separation, hence mirrors effect, because fundamentally karma is sideless, it’s beyond of that.

Everyone who pretend being « the good side » is fundamentally « demonic ».

Edited May 20 by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

9 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

There is a bit more going on in the brain of person diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Formation of Lewy bodies and Tau proteins isn't necessary linked to acetylcholine. What you may see is loss of neuronal excitability exactly because the functional structure of the brain is being replaced by necrotic tissue and beta amyloid. So its not that ACT deficiency is causing it, it is that there is less activity going on because the cerebral tissue is dying. 

You can't make the argument that Alzheimer's is basically meat deficiency which the above comment seems to refer to. That would be a bit simplistic way to look at human physiology. 

 

 

Alzheimer's is the expression of the calcification of the maya. It happens to people with an increasingly repetitive rhythm of life, because they are afraid of confrontation with their emptyness; that is, of their unhappiness, unhappiness of their attachment.

Happiness and creativity is in the unknown, Alzheimer's does not appear to creative and open-minded people because they do not need to destroy their memory as a desperate attempt to forget their regret.