should veganism be given "protected status"?
Discussion
Killboy said:
What about locally sourced vegan food? :mindblown:
And no, meat is just not healthy. There is more than enough science on it, and you welcome to try refute it. It simply increases cholesterol, blood pressure, and has more than enough links to cancer to worry a tobacco lobbyist. You can source it where you want, it will not remove the issues. Vegetarian and vegan diets are hands down healthier than even 95g meat ones.
BTW, I'm not preaching. Its just entertaining seeing the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their s
t.
Here is my dinner tonight
That's not "Meat" it's red and processed meat. Any insignificant risks from fish are outweighed by the beneficial nutrition, together with reduced risks from cancers and heart disease, there are no specific risks from chicken. Some low fat dairy in your diet is better than abstinence.And no, meat is just not healthy. There is more than enough science on it, and you welcome to try refute it. It simply increases cholesterol, blood pressure, and has more than enough links to cancer to worry a tobacco lobbyist. You can source it where you want, it will not remove the issues. Vegetarian and vegan diets are hands down healthier than even 95g meat ones.
BTW, I'm not preaching. Its just entertaining seeing the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their s
t.Here is my dinner tonight
There are way more harmful plants to eat than meats. That doesn't mean eating plants is dangerous, since it's easy to avoid them. However we have to compare the median of people, who have the commitment to take enough care in their diet, to be vegan/vegetarian with the median for omnivores; that will be skewed by those who don't take anything like the same care with what they eat.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 10th January 20:45
Killboy said:
And no, meat is just not healthy. There is more than enough science on it, and you welcome to try refute it. It simply increases cholesterol, blood pressure, and has more than enough links to cancer to worry a tobacco lobbyist. You can source it where you want, it will not remove the issues. Vegetarian and vegan diets are hands down healthier than even 95g meat ones.
BTW, I'm not preaching. Its just entertaining seeing the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their st.
Not preaching maybe, but either misinformed or lying. BTW, I'm not preaching. Its just entertaining seeing the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their s
t.Cholesterol has been demonised to sell alternate "foods" that don't contain it. It is vital in every cell and you would be quite dead without it.
The cancer RR of 1.18 for "red and processed meat" is so much less than the noise in epidemiological surveys that it should have been laughed at. Instead it gets trotted out as "fact" by people who either don't understand it or hope that we don't.
Meat is quite simply the most nutritious food available to us.
grumbledoak said:
Killboy said:
And no, meat is just not healthy. There is more than enough science on it, and you welcome to try refute it. It simply increases cholesterol, blood pressure, and has more than enough links to cancer to worry a tobacco lobbyist. You can source it where you want, it will not remove the issues. Vegetarian and vegan diets are hands down healthier than even 95g meat ones.
BTW, I'm not preaching. Its just entertaining seeing the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their st.
Not preaching maybe, but either misinformed or lying. BTW, I'm not preaching. Its just entertaining seeing the mental gymnastics people go through to justify their s
t.Cholesterol has been demonised to sell alternate "foods" that don't contain it. It is vital in every cell and you would be quite dead without it.
The cancer RR of 1.18 for "red and processed meat" is so much less than the noise in epidemiological surveys that it should have been laughed at. Instead it gets trotted out as "fact" by people who either don't understand it or hope that we don't.
Meat is quite simply the most nutritious food available to us.
Graveworm said:
That's not "Meat" it's red and processed meat. Any insignificant risks from fish are outweighed by the beneficial nutrition, together with reduced risks from cancers and heart disease, there are no specific risks from chicken. Some low fat dairy in your diet is better than abstinence.
There are way more harmful plants to eat than meats. That doesn't mean eating plants is dangerous, since it's easy to avoid them. However we have to compare the median of people, who have the commitment to take enough care in their diet, to be vegan/vegetarian with the median for omnivores; that will be skewed by those who don't take anything like the same care with what they eat.
I'll agree with that. The question is whether those that are feeling good about their "meat" diets actually follow this. I dont much. And with the average BMI of the UK, I'm guessing not many do There are way more harmful plants to eat than meats. That doesn't mean eating plants is dangerous, since it's easy to avoid them. However we have to compare the median of people, who have the commitment to take enough care in their diet, to be vegan/vegetarian with the median for omnivores; that will be skewed by those who don't take anything like the same care with what they eat.
grumbledoak said:
Not preaching maybe, but either misinformed or lying.
Cholesterol has been demonised to sell alternate "foods" that don't contain it. It is vital in every cell and you would be quite dead without it.
The cancer RR of 1.18 for "red and processed meat" is so much less than the noise in epidemiological surveys that it should have been laughed at. Instead it gets trotted out as "fact" by people who either don't understand it or hope that we don't.
Meat is quite simply the most nutritious food available to us.
I'm guessing you are referring to this: https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/have-controv...Cholesterol has been demonised to sell alternate "foods" that don't contain it. It is vital in every cell and you would be quite dead without it.
The cancer RR of 1.18 for "red and processed meat" is so much less than the noise in epidemiological surveys that it should have been laughed at. Instead it gets trotted out as "fact" by people who either don't understand it or hope that we don't.
Meat is quite simply the most nutritious food available to us.
I worked for a cancer research trust, and I can assure you this is very much not the thinking when I left there (5ish years ago), but I was not aware of this development, so that is interesting. Bowel Cancer UK still recommend avoiding processed meat and limiting red meat, but if this changes I'll feel a lot better about my diet
Consider me schooled!
Killboy said:
I'm guessing you are referring to this: https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/have-controv...
I worked for a cancer research trust, and I can assure you this is very much not the thinking when I left there (5ish years ago), but I was not aware of this development, so that is interesting. Bowel Cancer UK still recommend avoiding processed meat and limiting red meat, but if this changes I'll feel a lot better about my diet
Consider me schooled!
Some people say anything to justify their bullsI worked for a cancer research trust, and I can assure you this is very much not the thinking when I left there (5ish years ago), but I was not aware of this development, so that is interesting. Bowel Cancer UK still recommend avoiding processed meat and limiting red meat, but if this changes I'll feel a lot better about my diet
Consider me schooled!
t opinions huh .... lolKillboy said:
I'm guessing you are referring to this: https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/have-controv...
I worked for a cancer research trust, and I can assure you this is very much not the thinking when I left there (5ish years ago), but I was not aware of this development, so that is interesting. Bowel Cancer UK still recommend avoiding processed meat and limiting red meat, but if this changes I'll feel a lot better about my diet
Consider me schooled!
Not that change specifically - epidemiology is junk science, always was. At best it is based on asking people a list of questions like "how much chicken did you eat in Feb 2019". "How many eggs in March 2019?". At worst it is based on old marketing questionaires aimed at finding out which brand of margerine people prefer, just because that data is available. People don't keep accurate records, they don't like to say "don't know", and if they know it's for "health" they will lie about how much crap they eat. Then the scientists make dubious correlations with disease, unable to control for a thousand other lifestyle choices. Any "relative risk" below about 5.0 should be ignored. But instead tiny ones make headlines when it suits.I worked for a cancer research trust, and I can assure you this is very much not the thinking when I left there (5ish years ago), but I was not aware of this development, so that is interesting. Bowel Cancer UK still recommend avoiding processed meat and limiting red meat, but if this changes I'll feel a lot better about my diet
Consider me schooled!
Cancer is one of our "diseases of civilization". The idea that these are caused by the foods we have eaten for millions of years is ridiculous. Seed oils? Sugar? Good questions. Glyphosate drenched vegetables? Another good one. Red meat? No.
NewUsername said:
More lies
No vegan can get what they need produces within what you’d call a local radius. Impossible in the uk.
Telling me a vegan diet can be 100% definitely more healthy than an omnivorous diet is also lies.
You still haven’t addressed the deficiencies I pointed out on the last page.
Try harder
I take onboard everything you've said, and can't fundamentally disagree with much of it.No vegan can get what they need produces within what you’d call a local radius. Impossible in the uk.
Telling me a vegan diet can be 100% definitely more healthy than an omnivorous diet is also lies.
You still haven’t addressed the deficiencies I pointed out on the last page.
Try harder
What does that have to do with people choosing to be vegan, given that all of the challenges you've pointed out have practical, real-world solutions?
grumbledoak said:
Not that change specifically - epidemiology is junk science, always was. At best it is based on asking people a list of questions like "how much chicken did you eat in Feb 2019". "How many eggs in March 2019?". At worst it is based on old marketing questionaires aimed at finding out which brand of margerine people prefer, just because that data is available. People don't keep accurate records, they don't like to say "don't know", and if they know it's for "health" they will lie about how much crap they eat. Then the scientists make dubious correlations with disease, unable to control for a thousand other lifestyle choices. Any "relative risk" below about 5.0 should be ignored. But instead tiny ones make headlines when it suits.
Cancer is one of our "diseases of civilization". The idea that these are caused by the foods we have eaten for millions of years is ridiculous. Seed oils? Sugar? Good questions. Glyphosate drenched vegetables? Another good one. Red meat? No.
Genuine question: Why have the WHO not changed their guidance then?Cancer is one of our "diseases of civilization". The idea that these are caused by the foods we have eaten for millions of years is ridiculous. Seed oils? Sugar? Good questions. Glyphosate drenched vegetables? Another good one. Red meat? No.
I think this also make light of the other comparisons made. The healthiest nations all seem have one thing in common with their diets, the low consumption of red meat.
Killboy said:
Sticks. said:
What's your point? Is because some, maybe a lot of omnivores don't think about their diet and have poor health a vegan diet is therefore better? Well any diet where you think about what you eat is better than one where you don't.
But the point, as is understood it, was that you can have an omnivorous or vegetarian diet without the need for supplements, but you can't a vegan diet.
What exactly does the "point" take away from the validity of a vegan diet?But the point, as is understood it, was that you can have an omnivorous or vegetarian diet without the need for supplements, but you can't a vegan diet.
Killboy said:
Genuine question: Why have the WHO not changed their guidance then?
I think this also make light of the other comparisons made. The healthiest nations all seem have one thing in common with their diets, the low consumption of red meat.
Huge pressure from the processed food lobby, probably. They are the ones who stand to benefit from discouraging meat eating. They don't just advertise overtly, they give grants to scientists and they fund dieticians and they get themselves seats on Public Health boards, all of which creates the information atmosphere you, me, our government, and the WHO are surrounded by.I think this also make light of the other comparisons made. The healthiest nations all seem have one thing in common with their diets, the low consumption of red meat.
I'm not sure what your definition of "healthy" is based on. Lots of contentious studies there. The longest lived people at present are those in Hong Kong, they also happen to eat the most meat per capita. Certainly it isn't killing them!
http://statisticstimes.com/demographics/countries-...
https://blog.euromonitor.com/meat-consumption-tren...
yonex said:
Interestingly I spotted a ch4 program about families being given animals then apparently choosing abattoir or vegetarian?
I think it’s pretty poor taste to brainwash kids, let alone adults with this kind of thing.
RDA of protein for a typical PH powerfully built director type is ~ 100g+I think it’s pretty poor taste to brainwash kids, let alone adults with this kind of thing.
You’d be eating 500g of chickpea hummus per day to achieve that.
That’s best case.
Use nuts and other veg and you’re at almost 1kg of food to get the protein you need.
It’s doable but you’re gonna be living a life more like the animals you’d have eaten... grazing all day.
Then releasing methane. And filling the land with mono-culture crops.
So the humans become the cattle and livestock all in one.
Great. But you deny animals and all the other stuff in the food chain around them an existence.
Birds of prey? No thanks, they eat rodents, but rodents aren’t allowed in crops.
Wild birds. No thanks, they aren’t gonna be eating insects that are killed by insecticides.
And on and on.
Only profit driven big business could push this b
ks.Veganism can teach us a lot. Just as the keto diet can, or the atkins diet.
But to make it have protected status is complete and utter b
ks.I hope a big locust swarm eats all the lentils and chick peas and soya beans!
C70R said:
NewUsername said:
More lies
No vegan can get what they need produces within what you’d call a local radius. Impossible in the uk.
Telling me a vegan diet can be 100% definitely more healthy than an omnivorous diet is also lies.
You still haven’t addressed the deficiencies I pointed out on the last page.
Try harder
I take onboard everything you've said, and can't fundamentally disagree with much of it.No vegan can get what they need produces within what you’d call a local radius. Impossible in the uk.
Telling me a vegan diet can be 100% definitely more healthy than an omnivorous diet is also lies.
You still haven’t addressed the deficiencies I pointed out on the last page.
Try harder
What does that have to do with people choosing to be vegan, given that all of the challenges you've pointed out have practical, real-world solutions?
If you have issues with killing animals then fine, but don’t try to take the moral high ground because I don’t think it’s real as explained, just live your life the way you want to.
yonex said:
Some fantastic beef forerib tonight. Some great wine and company. The reason for posting is that one of my guests was a vegetarian, she was lovely, we served her an awesome nut roast.
Why is it, PH can’t see real life?
I think most of us can, I think some posters whilst desperately trying to prove militant vegans don’t exist have demonstrated the opposite Why is it, PH can’t see real life?
There have been quite a few "No True Vegan..." assertions.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff