[lol] It's so obvious that humans are carnivores.

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

Are you argumenting for a carnivores diet/ highly meat based diet or for a diet that includes some meat?

A meat-based diet.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

What deficiencies?

Mostly B12, EPA/DHA, Vitamine A.

But also Choline, Zinc, L-Carnitine, Taurine and simply a good amount of protein.
You can say that the nutrients just above are present in sufficient quantities in a vegan diet, or that they are not "essential nutrients" but:

1) It's hypocritical because vegans are all (or almost) pro-high carbs, exogenous carbohydrates are also not "essential" in absolute terms.

2) Just because you're not deficient in something doesn't mean low intake isn't a problem.
A low intake of the above nutrients will decrease your mental and physical performance.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

Well as I argumented there are many reasons for why our brain developed independent from the fact that we consumed meat.

No, it's literally the centerpiece.
No omega 3 EPA/DHA, no human brain development
Moreover, animal products are the most calorically dense in nature, there were no particularly caloric plants in Paleolithic Africa apart from certain fruits and tubers.

I've also posted several links that show that the demographic expansion of homo sapiens and his hominid ancestors significantly influenced the fauna of southern africa, as well as links showing that civilizations like the valley civilization industry was probably meat-based.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

Also we could have just grown more intelligent and therefore gotten able to kill more animals tactically and as a result thrived and reproduced a lot. You say that the chicken came before the egg but you don't actually know. 

Ditto

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

But all of this doesn't even really matter because we have modern nutrition now which might be better than any paleo diet. 

If science (if that means anything) "proves" that a diet is healthier and it's irrefutable, then it's more likely that it's just our view of the paleo diet that's wrong.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

It's good as a side dish instead of rice for example. 

Luckily ha ha 

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

"complete cereals" lol. Sounds carbphobic. 

I'm not against carbohydrates, fruits and natural sources of monosaccharides are good.
In fact I eat a lot of carbohydrates for the calories, every morning I eat porridge, I just worry about preparing it well (soaking, cooking) and mixing it with butter so that it is pleasant for the intestines, Oats are inexpensive and quite nutritious. 

I am still aware that this is not natural in itself, given the preparation it requires, and that oats without butter/honey/fruits/spices are tasteless and even unpleasant.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

Bulgur is made out of wheat flour so its not really a natural product

agree

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

I am not arguing that cooked grains are more appealing than meat, (although idk if I would like it because I am not used to meat anymore). Anyway let's take a pig as an example. A pig is a clear omnivore we can agree on that right? If you give that pig the option between veggies and meat I think it's safe to say that it would pick the meat. Not because it's healthier or more natural for the pig but just because the meat is loaded with calories and calories are jummi.

 

Herbivores are very fond of eating food that is not nutritionally dense.
Also the plants are not very dense for us because we cannot derive energy from the fibers (which are fructose polymers), but for a ruminant for example it is in fact dense food.

The real question is, will the pig choose between meat and cooked grains?
And even the answer will be tendentious because men are not pigs.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

 

Well if a deer has badly adapted enzymes for meat but still manages to break up 10% of the meat that's still better then the grass where it can digest 90% from or whatever.

I'm not sure I understood

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

 Are you sure people like meat without seasonings? I was never a big meat eater so I can't really tell but I always find

Yes, most people where I am eat almost raw meat, with just a little salt (or not).

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

it funny how bodybuilder grow tired of eating their unseasoned chicken breast so much ?

The bodybuilder diet is a nightmare, even the best food in the world will be disgusting if you have to eat it in industrial quantities.

13 hours ago, Jannes said:

I think you have to compare seasoned plants with seasoned meat or unseasoned meat with unseasoned plants. And even then, as in my marked comment, meat has an advantage because it is high in calories which doesn't mean it's healthy for ya. High calorie foods just taste good for survival reasons but that doesn't count anymore. 

 

 

agree, but it's more complicated than plants vs meat.
A mango or certain vegetables are very good, kale is not pleasant.
Muscle meat, eggs and milk are very good, some parts of the animal can be unpleasant (kidneys, liver...)

 

12 hours ago, M A J I said:

All I see here is major denial of truth and a severe lack of education. I no longer have to partake in this, all the relevant facts have been stated.

Take it or leave it, enjoy your empty rambles.

Lol, i find you very pretentious for someone who bases his diet on biblical writings and the opinion of some engineer.

And from the youtube videos of course, I recognized Neil Barnard's "children playing with the rabbit" argument ah ah.
Except that just watching videos from nutritionfact.org and neil barnard isn't enough to be "scientifically informed" or simply show yourself to be an exceptionally rational person.

[Schizophonia]

15 hours ago, Basman said:

Humans are clearly omnivores. There are no primates or past human species that where obligate carnivores or herbivores. It is a strength of our species. It means that there is more for us to eat and our physiology doesn't have to overly specialize, locking us out of being a generalist species.

As to what is preferable, it depends on you. Some people prefer certain diets because of how it makes them feel, but I'd be sure to take dietary trends on the internet with a grain of salt. Social media rewards extremism and outrage, making certain attitudes more visible. You have to ask yourself if a proposed diet is being propogated because it is generally true or because how the influencer manages to sway the algorithm to their favor.

Spot on

I play so I'm a bit extreme about the fact that we are "carnivorous", obviously we ate everything we could find for more calories including plants. You can be vegan and be healthy, I just tease them by childishly showing why I'm skeptical.

No need to have headaches 

[Jannes]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

A meat-based diet.

Why though. You don't need all your calories coming from animal products in order to get enough protein and healthy fats for your brain and muscles. (Or any ) And evolutionary speaking all of this brain growth could have happened with a part fish diet. I don't think there is even that much Omega3 in meat but I could be wrong about that.

Quote

Mostly B12, EPA/DHA, Vitamine A.

Can be supplemented. 

Carnivores miss ALA from Omega 3.

Vitamin A is in lots of fruits and veggies 

We could have gotten B12 easily from the dirt on plants and some insect on leaves for example vegan (well kinda vegan) 

That we only gotten EPA/DHA naturally through animal products is true though. 

But it's possible to get it with algae oil. And as a vegetarian with eggs, especially omega3 eggs. 

Quote

But also Choline, Zinc, L-Carnitine, Taurine and simply a good amount of protein.
You can say that the nutrients just above are present in sufficient quantities in a vegan diet, or that they are not "essential nutrients" but:

1) It's hypocritical because vegans are all (or almost) pro-high carbs, exogenous carbohydrates are also not "essential" in absolute terms.

They tend to be on average but you could actually run a ketogenic vegan diet if you wanted. 

Idk where vegans are hypocrites. They don't say that you need or should eat as much carbs as possible to be healthy I don't think.

I don't think you are getting easily getting deficient in these nutrients as a vegan. Zinc is the only one of that list that DGE (German Society for Nutrition) sees as a high risk of lacking in vegans and they are pretty conservative in their claims. 

Quote

2) Just because you're not deficient in something doesn't mean low intake isn't a problem.
A low intake of the above nutrients will decrease your mental and physical performance.

That's what being deficient in something means, that it is a problem. 

Quote

No, it's literally the centerpiece.
No omega 3 EPA/DHA, no human brain development
Moreover, animal products are the most calorically dense in nature, there were no particularly caloric plants in Paleolithic Africa apart from certain fruits and tubers.

I've also posted several links that show that the demographic expansion of homo sapiens and his hominid ancestors significantly influenced the fauna of southern africa, as well as links showing that civilizations like the valley civilization industry was probably meat-based.

Well there are many intelligent plant eating animals. Those also developed their brain only with plants somehow. 

I asked chatgpt about it and that's it answer below.

Quote

If science (if that means anything) "proves" that a diet is healthier and it's irrefutable, then it's more likely that it's just our view of the paleo diet that's wrong.

What do you mean by that?

Quote

I'm not against carbohydrates, fruits and natural sources of monosaccharides are good.
In fact I eat a lot of carbohydrates for the calories, every morning I eat porridge, I just worry about preparing it well (soaking, cooking) and mixing it with butter so that it is pleasant for the intestines, Oats are inexpensive and quite nutritious. 

I am still aware that this is not natural in itself, given the preparation it requires, and that oats without butter/honey/fruits/spices are tasteless and even unpleasant.

Cooking is a very natural thing to do for us humans. Our digestive track is literally adapted for cooked food. 

Quote

agree

Herbivores are very fond of eating food that is not nutritionally dense.
Also the plants are not very dense for us because we cannot derive energy from the fibers (which are fructose polymers), but for a ruminant for example it is in fact dense food.

It will be more nutritionally dense but still a cow for example has to eat pounds of grass everyday to get enough calories. Even with everything adapted perfectly.

Quote

The real question is, will the pig choose between meat and cooked grains?
And even the answer will be tendentious because men are not pigs.

That's not what I wanted to illustrate. And cooked meat will be more nutritionally dense than cooked grains. 

Quote

I'm not sure I understood

Cow example

Quote

Yes, most people where I am eat almost raw meat, with just a little salt (or not).

Damn where do you live?

Quote

The bodybuilder diet is a nightmare, even the best food in the world will be disgusting if you have to eat it in industrial quantities.

yep

Quote

agree, but it's more complicated than plants vs meat.
A mango or certain vegetables are very good, kale is not pleasant.
Muscle meat, eggs and milk are very good, some parts of the animal can be unpleasant (kidneys, liver...)

I find that very interesting. I don't think people back then would through away the offal of an animal cause then they would waste a good chunk of the animal and the insights are the most nutritious. So doesn't that speak against carnivore diets being "natural" that we dislike the taste of unseasoned offals?

Edited April 25, 2023 by Jannes

[Leo Gura]

On 4/18/2023 at 11:17 AM, The0Self said:

What was affected the most? Triglycerides and HDL? Triglycerides and VLDL?

Every cholestoral number there is got way worse in every possible way.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Roy]

On 4/17/2023 at 4:53 AM, Schizophonia said:

Your excuse to repress your instincts and obey Dr. Greger, McDougall or another fallout ghoul? 

Ngl this post was triggering me a bit but then when you referred to vegans as fallout ghouls I spit laughing and realized you have a good sense of humor 

[Michael569]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Every cholestoral number there is got way worse in every possible way.

Have your ApoB measured. It is more important than the entire lipid panel and most likely the most relevant marker. The test is relatively cheap in US

If it shows too high and you cannot change the diet for now, it might be a good idea to take an occasional injection of PCSK-9 inhibitor to protect your vascular system from atherogenesis while you fix your gut.

Alternatively, taking a low-grade statin would keep those levels low as well. It is not ideal, but it is the lesser evil where arterial plaque build-up is concerned. 

Just a friendly share

Edited April 26, 2023 by Michael569

[undeather]

3 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Have your ApoB measured. It is more important than the entire lipid panel and most likely the most relevant marker. The test is relatively cheap in US

If it shows too high and you cannot change the diet for now, it might be a good idea to take an occasional injection of PCSK-9 inhibitor to protect your vascular system from atherogenesis while you fix your gut.

Alternatively, taking a low-grade statin would keep those levels low as well. It is not ideal, but it is the lesser evil where arterial plaque build-up is concerned. 

Just a friendly share

Good advice.
Maybe to mention that PCSK9-inhibitors are super expensive (~6-10k $/ year), while statins are cheap as hell.
Also, check your Lipoprotein A (Lp(a)) at least once in your lifetime - even if your ApoB is known. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by undeather

[Basman]

I went to a vegan restaurant an everyone inside was grumpy and miserable

6 hours ago, Roy said:

vegans as fallout ghouls

Litteraly.

[Schizophonia]

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Why though. You don't need all your calories coming from animal products in order to get enough protein and healthy fats for your brain and muscles. (Or any ) And evolutionary speaking all of this brain growth could have happened with a part fish diet. I don't think there is even that much Omega3 in meat but I could be wrong about that.

You are right, by meat I also meant fish.
In fact, I saw a pharmacist doctor on a forum explain that humans were hunters of fish, shellfish and small game (thus white meat, low in heme iron...).
Probably true, I didn't do more research.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Can be supplemented. 

This is precisely the problem 

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Carnivores miss ALA from Omega 3.

I didn't know, maybe.
Do you have a link ?

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Vitamin A is in lots of fruits and veggies 

It is not Vitamin A but beta-carotene, which is only a precursor.

You need at least double the amount of beta carotene to get the same plasma retinol boost.
You must be careful to consume plants particularly rich in BC (which do not exist in nature, such as carrots or sweet potatoes) on a daily basis or almost daily, assuming that you do not have genetics that drastically reduce your ability to conversion, which is recurrent (BCO1 Gene)

https://www.xcode.life/23andme-raw-data/beta-carotene-conversion-vitamin-a/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096837/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7353293/

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

We could have gotten B12 easily from the dirt on plants and some insect on leaves for example vegan (well kinda vegan) 

Do you have proof or do you draw this example from the opinion of certain doctors or vegan speakers on ideological documentaries?
The recommended amount of B12 is 2/3 mcg per day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak per day, assuming full bioavailability.
How do you expect to have the equivalent by eating wild plants (which by the way? most edible plants contain little cobalt, and it is accused of being carcinogenic), where perhaps bacteria have consumed and metabolized a little of cobalt in b12?

As a reminder, the most recognized theories are simply that B12 passes through the food chain from insects to larger carnivorous/omnivorous animals, and that large herbivores and especially ruminants obtain theirs by fermenting large amounts (several kilos per day of raw greens ) quantities of plants more or less rich in cobalt in their digestive system.

Before releasing the arguments of certain marginal vegan personalities remember that Game Changer, WhatTheHealth and other documentaries were produced by screenwriters of cinemas, that their speakers are controversial compared to the rest of the members of the medical system, and that their diffusion is allowed and protected by the legislation of a country so liberal (partly rightly) that it allows the presence of a lot of sects on its territory.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

That we only gotten EPA/DHA naturally through animal products is true though. 

But it's possible to get it with algae oil. And as a vegetarian with eggs, especially omega3 eggs. 

So the only important and easily accessible sources remain animals.
You may not be deficient by consuming certain algae, my point is that this is not proof that humans are fundamentally adapted to a herbivorous diet.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

They tend to be on average but you could actually run a ketogenic vegan diet if you wanted. 

looks like a nightmare 

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Idk where vegans are hypocrites. They don't say that you need or should eat as much carbs as possible to be healthy I don't think.

I target personalities like McDougall who insist that protein or calcium deficiency "does not exist" as if that argument were enough, avoiding applying the same logic to carbohydrates.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

I don't think you are getting easily getting deficient in these nutrients as a vegan. Zinc is the only one of that list that DGE (German Society for Nutrition) sees as a high risk of lacking in vegans and they are pretty conservative in their claims. 

It's not that you'll be technically deficient, it's mainly partially orally available peptides/proteins, the consumption of which has additional benefits.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

That's what being deficient in something means, that it is a problem. 

Well there are many intelligent plant eating animals. Those also developed their brain only with plants somehow. 

I asked chatgpt about it and that's it answer below.

What animals? The most intelligent animals do not exceed the cognitive capacities of a 6-year-old homo sapiens child, and they are all at least omnivorous (pig, dog, dolphins, etc.)

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

What do you mean by that?

I mean, there can't be a healthier modern diet than the paleo diet.
If you manage to demonstrate, without possible refutation, that for example a vegan diet is healthier and more pleasant than a paleo diet, then there is a good chance that the vegan diet is the real paleo diet.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Cooking is a very natural thing to do for us humans. Our digestive track is literally adapted for cooked food. 

Vegetables, even cooked and well prepared, can be unpleasant/irritating to the intestines, cause gas, etc. even cooked, they also have an unattractive taste.
No civilization eats beans or whole grains unless they are very well prepared (fermentation, soaking, robust cooking...).
Humans produce a lot of amylase, but it may simply be an epigenetic modification (due to the consumption of starches), or an adaptation to the digestion of animal muscle glycogen, short polysaccharides (sucrose ) or simply easy plant starches

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

It will be more nutritionally dense but still a cow for example has to eat pounds of grass everyday to get enough calories. Even with everything adapted perfectly.

It's true, and precisely that doesn't pose a problem for him.
Now can you eat several pounds of vegetables or just pounds of cooked starches a day for your 2000 to 3000 calories a day as a human? 

I tried to go on a HCLF diet at 3000 calories a day, the most unpleasant diet I have ever done in my life.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

That's not what I wanted to illustrate. And cooked meat will be more nutritionally dense than cooked grains. 

Not necessarily, maybe even the opposite if your meat is lean.
There is also more "unnecessary" calorie loss with amino acids than with glucose.

It's more or less equivalent after all

+I bought tamari a few weeks ago, it's quite boring to peel and it's not very dense in terms of calories, yet it's much more appealing than biting into an avocado or raw starches.
So this argument does not seem so obvious that !a.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

 

Damn where do you live?

South West of France

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

 

I find that very interesting. I don't think people back then would through away the offal of an animal cause then they would waste a good chunk of the animal and the insights are the most nutritious. So doesn't that speak against carnivore diets being "natural" that we dislike the taste of unseasoned offals?

Organ meats can taste relatively good (example: raw fresh beef liver), but it is much less attractive than muscle meat, and this is more of a problem (muscle meat is rich in zinc, but organs such as the liver are too rich in copper, can also create an excess of vitamin A and can be other problems).

I believe that the majority of large predators including humans are adapted and prefer muscle meat, and that other smaller predators in the food chain are scavengers and eat organs etc down to microorganisms that devour bones , part of the cartilages etc.

I don't know if it's true, but I seem to have seen somewhere that white people had higher ferritin because of the progressive adaptation to a higher consumption of dairy products and therefore of calcium compared to the meat (calcium blocks the absorption of iron).
To be taken with tweezers.

20 hours ago, Jannes said:

Agree.

anything that allows more calories would have helped brain development, I just wanted to say that the consumption of fish rich in certain fatty acids was necessary for its structural evolution.

6 hours ago, Roy said:

Ngl this post was triggering me a bit but then when you referred to vegans as fallout ghouls I spit laughing and realized you have a good sense of humor 

Lol

Kidding aside, these guys are in poor health. They may look "ok" on google photos but if you watch the videos you see the destruction.

They also wear loose clothing to hide muscle wasting.

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Every cholestoral number there is got way worse in every possible way.

If you say that you are probably around 400/500mg/dl

Have you tested an index measuring inflammation (CRP Reactive for example) or even a test verifying if you have developed artherosclerosis? This is what high LDL scores in particular are supposedly correlated with.

[undeather]

Quote

 

If you say that you are probably around 400/500mg/dl

Have you tested an index measuring inflammation (CRP Reactive for example) or even a test verifying if you have developed artherosclerosis? This is what high LDL scores in particular are supposedly correlated with.

 

It takes years - sometimes even decades for measureable atherosclerotic plaques to form. 
Most modalities, especially vascular-ultrasound are very crude measurement techniques with very low specificity.
MRI-angiography would be a gold standard but is expensive and sometimes difficult to interpret.
Calcium-scores are useful, but it comes with a shitload of limitations: Calcification is a late-stage process of atherogenesis, soft plaques are much more common in young people, there are a shitton of heart attacks in young people with CAC=0.

Funfact: Statins tend to increase CAC-Scores but decrease the rate of heart attacks. Funnily enough, more calcified plaques tend to rapture less frequently - which makes sense if you think about it. 

hs-CRP and other acute phase proteins CAN correlate with atherogenesis but it's a terrible proxy because it's regulated by all sorts of processes. If somebody sneezes in front of you, your CRP will go up - good luck decoupling this from tiny changes in plaque formation.

Edited April 26, 2023 by undeather

[Asayake]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

I went to a vegan restaurant an everyone inside was grumpy and miserable

Is it possible that your aversion towards veganism got projected onto the people there, because you didn't really want to be there? Why do you think the Jews seemed to be evil to the Nazis?

[Basman]

19 minutes ago, Asayake said:

Is it possible that your aversion towards veganism got projected onto the people there, because you didn't really want to be there? Why do you think the Jews seemed to be evil to the Nazis?

Mad.

Never said I hated them tf. I was a vegan once.

Speaking of projection.

[Michael569]

5 hours ago, undeather said:

Maybe to mention that PCSK9-inhibitors are super expensive (~6-10k $/ year), while statins are cheap as hell.
Also, check your Lipoprotein A (Lp(a)) at least once in your lifetime - even if your ApoB is known. 

Good to know, I was not aware of the cost barrier. What is the pharmacodynamic life of a single shot before you need another one? 

Also regarding Lp(a) - where does it stand among full lipid panel and ApoB in terms of its relevance for CVD risk? 

 I understand that where evidence goes we have Total Cholesterol, LDL C and HDL-C at the top, ApoB probably one step lower and Lp(a) kinda somewhere underneath not being as significant but still interesting. 

Or is that not so? I have not looked into this myself so I'm a bit in the dark on that one

[Eyowey]

There's an agenda for people to eat meat as far as I can tell. Children eat fruit shaped candy made from pork fat instead of actual fruit. They are made to be so sweet that actual fruit seems boring in comparison. Only the devil would invent something like this.

[undeather]

Quote

What is the pharmacodynamic life of a single shot before you need another one? 

What do you mean with pharmacodynamic life? Half life? Pharmakokinetics? Dose-response?
 

Quote

 I understand that where evidence goes we have Total Cholesterol, LDL C and HDL-C at the top, ApoB probably one step lower and Lp(a) kinda somewhere underneath not being as significant but still interesting. 

We are slowly but surely entering the ApoB-era, leaving the other markers behind.
As you know, ApoB particle quality & quantity is the single most important factor in atherogenesis from a lipid-perspective. It comes with all the benefits of a surrogate marker like LDL-C and doesn't have the same downfalls (LDL-C measurement can sometimes be inaccurate in patients with DM or high triglycerides etc.). The reason we still use the "old ones" is because we are simply used to it. Cheap and effective assessments are ubiquitously available. Maybe there is an argument to be made about all our lipid-drug-reserach reserach in the last 50 years using LDL-C as the endpoint, but we do know for a fact that the real culprit is ApoB - so there is that. HDL-C becomes less and less relevant by the minute. Ratios are overrated if you have ApoB. 
 

Quote

Also regarding Lp(a) - where does it stand among full lipid panel and ApoB in terms of its relevance for CVD risk? 

Lp(a) expression is mostly genetic - in fact, its the most prevalent genetic lipid abnormality and also mostly overlooked.
Almost 20% run around with high Lp(a) and dont know it. Its super atherogenic and increases CVD risk substentially. 
If I got a patient with high ApoB & high Lp(a), then I know its time to agressively lower his ApoB burden. 
Lp(a) lowering is difficult - Statins won't do it - PCSK9-inhibitors will do it by about 25%. New drugs which look promising are in development. 
Lp(a) doesn't respond to diet, but ApoB does - people with high Lp(a) just need to look at their other risk factors more clearly. 
 

Edited April 26, 2023 by undeather

[Asayake]

5 hours ago, Basman said:

Mad.

Never said I hated them tf. I was a vegan once.

Speaking of projection.

I don't deny you never said that. I read it between the lines and I don't deny it's possible that was just my own projection. It's very possible you don't have any aversion towards vegans, they are just people trying to do the right thing after all and you can relate to that probably even more because you were once one yourself. But that you have an aversion against vegan food or veganism seems possible to me still. That you were a vegan once doesn't matter much in that case, it's a common thing that people try a certain thing and over time it turns out that thing wasn't for them/didn't work out for them and then they grow aversion towards that certain thing as a result. I have experienced that myself first hand with weed for example.

It's possible you were just sharing an objective observation, although your judgement that the people in the vegan restaurant were miserable & grumpy is your subjective interpretation of the situation and could be colored by unconscious motives. The reason for you sharing your observation seems to me to be to discredit veganism as an unhealthy way of eating that sucks the joy out of life, so that seems to indicate that you do value atleast vegan food or veganism negatively.

There were many possible reasons for why the people in the restaurant looked grumpy that had nothing to do with vegan food. Perhaps the food was just poorly cooked and tasted bad, perhaps people were stressed out from work or forced to go there because their vegan friend doesn't eat steak which was their real preference, perhaps it was cause they're stressed out from working low wage jobs. There are many possible reasons why people could appear miserable and grumpy yet you seemed to come to the conclusion that it was because of veganism/vegan food and that indicated to me that you could have some kind of aversion towards vegans, veganism or vegan food. But it would be interesting to hear more about your story with being a vegan and how things really are. It's impossible to get any meaning out of your comment without some degree of projection because your comment is an observation with an implicit meaning that leaves things up for intepretation but it seemed pretty likely to me that it tried to paint veganism in a bad light whichever way I tried to interpret it.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Asayake

[Sincerity]

9 hours ago, Basman said:

I went to a vegan restaurant an everyone inside was grumpy and miserable

This thread lol.

[Jannes]

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

You are right, by meat I also meant fish.
In fact, I saw a pharmacist doctor on a forum explain that humans were hunters of fish, shellfish and small game (thus white meat, low in heme iron...).
Probably true, I didn't do more research.

This is precisely the problem 

Why is supplementation bad? I agree with you that its not natural but if it works physiologically where is the problem?

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I didn't know, maybe.
Do you have a link ?

Quick google search will do.

Or here: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Omega3FattyAcids-Consumer/

ALA is essential

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

It is not Vitamin A but beta-carotene, which is only a precursor.

You need at least double the amount of beta carotene to get the same plasma retinol boost.
You must be careful to consume plants particularly rich in BC (which do not exist in nature, such as carrots or sweet potatoes) on a daily basis or almost daily, assuming that you do not have genetics that drastically reduce your ability to conversion, which is recurrent (BCO1 Gene)

https://www.xcode.life/23andme-raw-data/beta-carotene-conversion-vitamin-a/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9096837/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7353293/

oh okay. So it is possible vegan but it's not easy. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Do you have proof or do you draw this example from the opinion of certain doctors or vegan speakers on ideological documentaries?
The recommended amount of B12 is 2/3 mcg per day, roughly the equivalent of a small steak per day, assuming full bioavailability.
How do you expect to have the equivalent by eating wild plants (which by the way? most edible plants contain little cobalt, and it is accused of being carcinogenic), where perhaps bacteria have consumed and metabolized a little of cobalt in b12?

As a reminder, the most recognized theories are simply that B12 passes through the food chain from insects to larger carnivorous/omnivorous animals, and that large herbivores and especially ruminants obtain theirs by fermenting large amounts (several kilos per day of raw greens ) quantities of plants more or less rich in cobalt in their digestive system.

I heard the theory multiple times when I did some research years ago. 

There are some cases of vegans getting enough b12 without supplementation although they are the vast minority. 

Do you think by eating insects we could get enough b12? That's what I meant that we would have accidentally or not accidentally eaten some insects alongside the plants. No herbivore is 100% because they always eat some insects alongside. 

If that doesn't work you could supplement of course. Which is not natural but I don't see a problem with it especially if it's a small percentage of the vitamins that are supplemented. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Before releasing the arguments of certain marginal vegan personalities remember that Game Changer, WhatTheHealth and other documentaries were produced by screenwriters of cinemas, that their speakers are controversial compared to the rest of the members of the medical system, and that their diffusion is allowed and protected by the legislation of a country so liberal (partly rightly) that it allows the presence of a lot of sects on its territory.

These films are trash.

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

So the only important and easily accessible sources remain animals.
You may not be deficient by consuming certain algae, my point is that this is not proof that humans are fundamentally adapted to a herbivorous diet.

That's not what I said that humans are adapted to herbivorous diet and I didn't see it as that important. But I get your reasoning now. Your whole argumentation about what is natural or not is so important to you because that's what you think matters 100% to good health. Natural = Health.

Yes I would agree that humans are not perfectly adapted to a herbivorous diet. I would say that they are adapted to a cooked omnivore diet. So IF your point Natural = Health is true then I would agree that herbivorous diets are unhealthy. You haven't convinced that we are carnivores though. 

Anyways I got a few arguments against "Natural = Health":

This was an argument I already made. Even if you are adapted to diet A, these adaptions could accidentally also be usable for diet B. Like a sprinter is adapted for sprinting but is also a great jogger. 

If physiologically certain unnatural things like supplementation work well or physiologically some things don't work so well like to much colestoral on tons of meat then isnt that more believable then our background story?

Just because we survived on some things in the past doesn't mean we thrived on it or that it was the best diet for us it just means it was enough to get by and reproduce. 

Our biology is long and complicated. The human phase wasn't all our past. There are probably still even some adaptions we got from our biological mouse phase. So it's not really clear to say what we perfectly are adapted to. 

Although it doesn't make up a huge time span relatively speaking there are still some adaptations we got in the last few thousand years ago. When your diet changes radically I think you can make very fast adjustments. For example in the scientific literature a dog is literally considered an omnivore just because we fed dogs so much veggies over the years because meat was to valuable that dogs became omnivores with almost as good veggie digesting capabilities as pigs. Of course not as great but pretty good. And given that humans were not straight carnivores like pigs we probably developed a lot further because our starting point was more in the direction of plant eater in the first point. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

looks like a nightmare 

I mean you have a few options like nut and seed bread with avocado or more nut butter, salads with olives, roasted veggies with oil, tahini dressings, scrambled tofu stuff, soy yoghurt. It's not great but also not a nightmare I think. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

I target personalities like McDougall who insist that protein or calcium deficiency "does not exist" as if that argument were enough, avoiding applying the same logic to carbohydrates.

yeah that is dumb af, please take examples of educated people from the vegan community. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

It's not that you'll be technically deficient, it's mainly partially orally available peptides/proteins, the consumption of which has additional benefits.

Do you have a link?

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

What animals? The most intelligent animals do not exceed the cognitive capacities of a 6-year-old homo sapiens child, and they are all at least omnivorous (pig, dog, dolphins, etc.)

great apes, elephants, parrots, .. 

and some carnivores are some of the dumbest animals on the planet like crocodiles. 

If there is a survival benefit to intelligence animals become more intelligent no matter what their diet is and if not they stay dumb no matter what their diet is. At least that's my observation. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Vegetables, even cooked and well prepared, can be unpleasant/irritating to the intestines, cause gas, etc. even cooked, they also have an unattractive taste.

I like the taste of veggies and there is nothing wrong with causing gas actually. Animals in nature fart all the time. The gas becomes unpleasant and irritating if we don't allow ourselves to get it out by farting which is the real problem. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

No civilization eats beans or whole grains unless they are very well prepared (fermentation, soaking, robust cooking...).
Humans produce a lot of amylase, but it may simply be an epigenetic modification (due to the consumption of starches), or an adaptation to the digestion of animal muscle glycogen, short polysaccharides (sucrose ) or simply easy plant starches

Yeah but what's the problem? Humans naturally cook things.

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

It's true, and precisely that doesn't pose a problem for him.
Now can you eat several pounds of vegetables or just pounds of cooked starches a day for your 2000 to 3000 calories a day as a human? 

I tried to go on a HCLF diet at 3000 calories a day, the most unpleasant diet I have ever done in my life.

With only veggies it's unrealistic but with grains included no problem. Why LF though? 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Not necessarily, maybe even the opposite if your meat is lean.
There is also more "unnecessary" calorie loss with amino acids than with glucose.

It's more or less equivalent after all

Yes with lean meat but fatty meat wins. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

+I bought tamari a few weeks ago, it's quite boring to peel and it's not very dense in terms of calories, yet it's much more appealing than biting into an avocado or raw starches. -> why not cooked?
So this argument does not seem so obvious that !a.

Isnt tamari like soy sauce. I don't understand. 

I wonder how things are if we would be really really hungry. Like if I eat a bunch of chocolate I love the taste of some natural veggie soup but if I am really hungry that really isnt doing anything for me I just want calories and cooked grains would be very appealing to me. 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

South West of France

oh okay

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Organ meats can taste relatively good (example: raw fresh beef liver), but it is much less attractive than muscle meat, and this is more of a problem (muscle meat is rich in zinc, but organs such as the liver are too rich in copper, can also create an excess of vitamin A and can be other problems).

I believe that the majority of large predators including humans are adapted and prefer muscle meat, and that other smaller predators in the food chain are scavengers and eat organs etc down to microorganisms that devour bones , part of the cartilages etc.

I don't know if it's true, but I seem to have seen somewhere that white people had higher ferritin because of the progressive adaptation to a higher consumption of dairy products and therefore of calcium compared to the meat (calcium blocks the absorption of iron).
To be taken with tweezers.

I asked chatgpt in which cases carnivores leave some of their loot and its either because they can't eat it all at once, they can't digest it all, some parts are toxic for the animal or certain tactical behavior. 

I don't think it would be either one of these reasons for humans because they could eat it all together in a tribe and by cooking the meat most parts should loose their toxicity. 

I am no specialist but it doesn't seem to me that it is one of the other reasons. 

So yeah weird that humans don't like the taste of organ meats if they are well adapted to it 

8 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Agree.

anything that allows more calories would have helped brain development, I just wanted to say that the consumption of fish rich in certain fatty acids was necessary for its structural evolution.

Given the fact that we couldn't get EPA and DHA I would agree with you there. 

How much fish was really needed isnt clear though, it could have been relatively little. 

 

.. damn took me more then an hour to answer all that. I hope you don't make any good points anymore 

 

[LfcCharlie4]

On 4/20/2023 at 5:45 PM, ZenAlex said:

Don't expect me to provide a detailed response if you've literally just googled "Why not to be vegan" and just copied and pasted a crappy response like this.

I've been vegan for 7 years. I've got blood tests. I'm not deficient in anything. Veganism is not a nutritionally deficient diet, and world health organisations have recognised it as a nutritionally sufficient diet. You can get everything you need from plants.

Why do you need to justify your food choices based on what you can theoretically do without - Because eating animal products and contributing the exploitation of animals without a very good reason is immoral and also bad for the environment. 

The fact that you have to ask why a Vegan would typically go vegan makes me think you've not really researched this subject, if that wasn't already obvious by your cut and paste crap above about what you supposedly cannot get as a vegan.

Why do you have this slave mentality? Wtf are you talking about? Also I don't get any cravings.

+1 

8 years here, blood tests verified by Michael here. 

Perfectly healthy, train 5 days a week, work an active job & have zero issues. 

Don't see myself ever going back

 

[Michael569]

16 hours ago, undeather said:

What do you mean with pharmacodynamic life? Half life? Pharmakokinetics? Dose-response?

sorry, I meant half-life 

16 hours ago, undeather said:

As you know, ApoB particle quality & quantity is the single most important factor in atherogenesis from a lipid-perspective.

Yes, I'm slowly beginning to realise this. if a patient comes to you with elevated LDL -C and elevated non-HDL, cholesterol, how do you tell if they would benefit from ApoB testing as well? Age? Ethnicity? Other risk factors? (alcohol, smoking) 

16 hours ago, undeather said:

Lp(a) expression is mostly genetic - in fact, its the most prevalent genetic lipid abnormality and also mostly overlooked.
Almost 20% run around with high Lp(a) and dont know it. Its super atherogenic and increases CVD risk substentially. 
If I got a patient with high ApoB & high Lp(a), then I know its time to agressively lower his ApoB burden. 
Lp(a) lowering is difficult - Statins won't do it - PCSK9-inhibitors will do it by about 25%. New drugs which look promising are in development. 
Lp(a) doesn't respond to diet, but ApoB does - people with high Lp(a) just need to look at their other risk factors more clearly. 

does LP(a) change over lifetime or is it moslty set like APoE4, if you have it, you have higher odds of ending up really fucked if you are not careful.