Peer Ederer's Arguments against Vegetarianism

I like butter. I also like red meat.
This is me three years ago.

https://ibb.co/7KGjcMx
(I appear to be having issues inserting the image directly).

I don't eat much butter now. 

But hey, your smiling. And still got your health 

You can be healthy and vegan in the 21st century - no question. But only because technology and an over abundance of food (for people wealthy enough) has gifted us the ability.

I've had friends that went vegan and as a result were pale as death, went dangerously underweight and lacked a lot of vigor and stamina. There's a healthy way to do things and an unhealthy way of doing things

Vegan is not synonymous with health

Omnivore is not synonymous with unhealthy

You can enjoy milk, eggs, cheese, honey, meats etc and still be healthy.

People think vegan food is more natural and unprocessed. That's not necessarily  true. Some foods that are vegan are absolutely unhealthy and very processed. Like all that pretend meat crap. Or even 'veggiev burgers and the like. Full of processed soy, salts, preservatives, artificial flavours etc. And other vegan foods that try to imitate the 'real' thing end up being sugar laden calorie bombs with little nutritional value



Just eat healthy and eat foods in moderation. Cut the processed crap and refined sugars and you should be fine.

Okay, show me how even a rich man in the middle ages (let alone a commoner) could have a diet that satisfied getting good protein (keep in mind in those days you couldn't live as lazy as today so protein requirements higher for life being more labour intensive) and all vitamins and minerals.

I don't think protein was much of a problem most of the time. After all, soy contains enough of all the essential amino-acids except perhaps methionine, and the dangers of getting too much methionine are probably greater than the dangers of getting too little methionine. If the only source of protein in your diet is wheat (as it is for many people around the world today), it's only then that you have a problem, namely, not getting enough lysine, which hurts the immune system. As for getting vitamins and minerals, yes, that was a problem. And not necessarily related to not eating enough meat, scurvy, because of not getting enough vitamin C, illnesses related to iodine deficiency, and sight problems due to not getting enough vitamin A, those were common place. B12 deficiency probably wasn't because the food people were eating was not sterile.

Tell me, do you think humans evolved to be vegans? We evolved as vegans?

Well, now, our ancestors millions of years ago were probably eating some insects, but, yes, they were mostly vegan. How do you think people hunted before the tools for that were invented?

I was dubious about the butter vs margarine trans fat issue too so I checked and was a little surprised

Why were you surprised? In Croatian, trans-fat acids are called "maslačne kiseline", "butter acids".

A better ‘natural’ choice would be using olive oil, avocados, nut butter or tahini, so try those instead.

But how many nutritionists would agree avocados are less harmful than margarine is? Though I haven't studied it too much, I think that not many. Most nutritionists would agree eggs are dangerous, especially to people with type-2-diabetes (and I have a family history of type-2-diabetes), because of their fat content. Well, if eggs are harmful, then so are avocados: both are around 25% saturated fat. I hope most nutritionists don't have double standards for animal-derived food and plant-derived food.

And some forms of natural trans fats found in dairy and animal meat is actually very good for you.

Most nutritionists agree all trans-fats are harmful. But, for those who oppose mainstream nutrition, no idea is crazy enough.
I mean, this is the type of reasoning those people engage in:
A: Fish is healthy because it contains a lot of omega-3-acids, which protect against atherosclerosis.
B: Here is ton of studies showing omega-3-acids in food don't protect against atherosclerosis and may even have a detrimental effect.
A: Well, maybe DHA to ALA ratio also plays a role, and not just the amount of omega-3 acids you intake. Plants generally contain a lot more ALA than DHA, fish contains a lot of DHA.
B: OK, maybe. But what you just admitted is that you have no evidence for your claim.

conjugated-linoleic-acid is also not easily made, so any (none animal based) supplement is not actually going to work.

If there are no supplements of that, that means the health claims about it can't be rigorously tested.

Quote from: Shifter

Tell me, do you think humans evolved to be vegans? We evolved as vegans?

Well, now, our ancestors millions of years ago were probably eating some insects, but, yes, they were mostly vegan. How do you think people hunted before the tools for that were invented?

[/quote]
Human have had tools for a VERY long time. More than 1,5 million years ago. So we evolved with tools for more than long enough that its effects of influencing our diet would have made serious evolutionary changes.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/stone-tools

Well, if eggs are harmful, then so are avocados: both are around 25% saturated fat. I hope most nutritionists don't have double standards for animal-derived food and plant-derived food.

Well, according to the Heart Foundation, they dont increase or decrease heart disease risk.
I hope most nutritionist actually use research to base their advice on.
Avos have about 2% saturated fat and Eggs 3%, so it does not sound all that bad.
Google is your friend.

Most nutritionists agree all trans-fats are harmful. But, for those who oppose mainstream nutrition, no idea is crazy enough.
I mean, this is the type of reasoning those people engage in:
A: Fish is healthy because it contains a lot of omega-3-acids, which protect against atherosclerosis.
B: Here is ton of studies showing omega-3-acids in food don't protect against atherosclerosis and may even have a detrimental effect.
A: Well, maybe DHA to ALA ratio also plays a role, and not just the amount of omega-3 acids you intake. Plants generally contain a lot more ALA than DHA, fish contains a lot of DHA.
B: OK, maybe. But what you just admitted is that you have no evidence for your claim.

Evidence?! Who needs Evidence?!
Oh, you do.

Here you go
https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/2/4/332/4591508
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50808787_Consumption_of_industrial_and_ruminant_trans_fatty_acids_and_risk_of_coronary_heart_disease_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis_of_cohort_studies
https://www.dairynutrition.ca/nutrients-in-milk-products/fat/the-facts-on-natural-trans-fats-and-cardiovascular-disease

I avoided all those in Nature, because I doubt you can access them.
Also, these studies are all older than 5 years. You should really brush up on what is happening in the world of nutrition.
But you will notice, that these studies actually looked at real world effects of natural trans-fats. As in, they studied people who ate them and found that there are actually some benifits
Moreover, emerging evidence suggests that some ruminant trans fatty acids, specifically conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and vaccenic acid, may be associated with cardiovascular benefits.

So we evolved with tools for more than long enough that its effects of influencing our diet would have made serious evolutionary changes.

I haven't researched it much, to be honest. It appears to be a very speculative field, though (What people were eating millions of years ago.).

Well, according to the Heart Foundation, they dont increase or decrease heart disease risk.

I have never heard of Heart Foundation. What are they? Why would they be a reliable source about nutrition?

Avos have about 2% saturated fat and Eggs 3%, so it does not sound all that bad.

I am talking about the percentage of fat that's saturated. Avocados are about 10% fat, and around 2% is saturated fat, so 2%/10%=20% of fat in avocados is saturated.

As in, they studied people who ate them and found that there are actually some benifits

And that's called epidemiological study, which is unreliable. What would count as good evidence is if they supplemented a group of people with CLA and had a control group which received placebo.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf

So we evolved with tools for more than long enough that its effects of influencing our diet would have made serious evolutionary changes.

I haven't researched it much, to be honest. It appears to be a very speculative field, though (What people were eating millions of years ago.).

Oh, I dont anyone really knows, we just had tools that far back already.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf

Well, according to the Heart Foundation, they dont increase or decrease heart disease risk.

I have never heard of Heart Foundation. What are they? Why would they be a reliable source about nutrition?

They are a foundation that studies cardiac disease. But there is loads of studies saying eggs are fine, just dont gobble up 12 a day.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf

Avos have about 2% saturated fat and Eggs 3%, so it does not sound all that bad.

I am talking about the percentage of fat that's saturated. Avocados are about 10% fat, and around 2% is saturated fat, so 2%/10%=20% of fat in avocados is saturated.

Cool, either way, I dont think Avo's or eggs have enough saturated fats to do much harm unless you eat an ostrich egg a day.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf

As in, they studied people who ate them and found that there are actually some benifits

And that's called epidemiological study, which is unreliable. What would count as good evidence is if they supplemented a group of people with CLA and had a control group which received placebo.

You want a long term study with 2 groups of people eating strict diets to study effect that only happen after 30-40 years. Good luck.

However, this study covers clinical, and mechanistic studies as well as epidemiological studies.
https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/2/4/332/4591508
Effects of Ruminant trans Fatty Acids on Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Epidemiological, Clinical, and Mechanistic Studies

Finds that there is no risk.

Just look at our common ancestors apes and monkeys. They are more than capable of killing other animals with a limited if any toolset. I am sure early humans ganged together to club to death prey animals. Fish would be easy kill too.

Also insects do provide protein. Something a vegan would never bring themselves to eat. They won't even eat foods that had any animal involvement! (eg honey because a bee made it)

Quote from: FlatAssembler on April 16, 2020, 07:53:53 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf

So we evolved with tools for more than long enough that its effects of influencing our diet would have made serious evolutionary changes.

I haven't researched it much, to be honest. It appears to be a very speculative field, though (What people were eating millions of years ago.).

Oh, I dont anyone really knows, we just had tools that far back already.

I think that it's pretty safe to guess what early humans didn't eat: highly processed foods.  I think that it's also safe to say that early humans were a lot more active in their daily hunting/gathering routine than most people are today.

But there is loads of studies saying eggs are fine, just dont gobble up 12 a day.

I think there may be some publication bias going on there. The vast majority of nutritionists believe eggs are harmful, so that's the null hypothesis. Epidemiological studies showing eggs somehow aren't harmful appear to have found something unknown to the world of nutrition, so they are more likely to get published than a study that confirms the consensus, that affirms that eggs are harmful. What matters is the scientific consensus, and it's clear that the scientific consensus is that eggs are harmful.

You want a long term study with 2 groups of people eating strict diets to study effect that only happen after 30-40 years.

Something being hard to prove doesn't somehow make it more reasonable to believe. The scientific consensus is obviously that all trans-fats are harmful (nutritional authorities, that have nothing to do with the vegan movement, are advising against the consumption of natural trans-fats as well as the artificial ones), so the burden of proof is one who claims some trans-fats aren't harmful. The fact that it's hard to prove doesn't mean we should, for some reason, lower the standards for accepting that claim.

Just look at our common ancestors apes and monkeys.

What abou them? Most of them are herbivores, and those that aren't eat insects, rather than what we usually think of as "meat". And I am not sure it would be a good idea to copy them, because...

Also insects do provide protein.

Insect meat tends to be very high in methionine, the amino-acid that causes cancer and heart disease in humans.

highly processed foods

And, what do you think, is there any truth to processed starch (such as one usually found in pasta) being harmful? I think carbohydrates in pasta are actually healthier than those found in fruits. Fruits contain some amount of fructose (though not as much as sugar or honey), pasta doesn't. It's the fructose that causes type-2-diabetes, by making your liver behave as if the glucose levels in your blood were lower than they actually are.

I enjoyed at least 2 chicken menstrual periods today. My heart is still fine.

Uh oh.....

https://theconversation.com/should-vegans-avoid-avocados-and-almonds-104800


Give up eating the avocados you vegan hypocrites!!! You are exploiting the poor bees!

Even the almonds! Kiwis! Melon! Butternut squash! You're all hypocrites if you eat them!

Stick to your highly processed and unfermented soy crap!

I think there may be some publication bias going on there. The vast majority of nutritionists believe eggs are harmful, so that's the null hypothesis. Epidemiological studies showing eggs somehow aren't harmful appear to have found something unknown to the world of nutrition, so they are more likely to get published than a study that confirms the consensus, that affirms that eggs are harmful. What matters is the scientific consensus, and it's clear that the scientific consensus is that eggs are harmful.

Scientific consensus is not what you decide what it is.
Scientific consensus such as various global health associations get us to consensus. And those associations say eggs are fine
So to show my point, Im going to spam the next bit just on quotes from Internationally recognized sources.

Harvard University - https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/are-eggs-risky-for-heart-health
The evidence that cholesterol in one egg a day is safe for most people comes from huge studies-many conducted here at Harvard Medical School-that have followed hundreds of thousands of people over decades.

Heartfoundation - https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/food-and-nutrition/protein-foods/eggs
Based on current evidence, the relationship between eggs and heart health is neutral.  This means that they neither increase nor decrease the risk of heart disease in most people. Eggs can contribute to healthy meals and are a healthy snack option compared to discretionary foods.

World Health Organisation - https://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/5_population_nutrient/en/index10.html
If intake of dairy fat and meat are controlled, there is no need to severely restrict egg yolk intake, although some limitation remains prudent..

Mayo Clinic - https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/expert-answers/cholesterol/faq-20058468
Most healthy people can eat up to seven eggs a week without increasing their risk of heart disease. Some studies have shown that this level of egg consumption may even help prevent certain types of stroke and a serious eye condition called macular degeneration that can lead to blindness.

National Health Services (UK) - https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/eating-one-egg-a-day-may-lower-risk-of-stroke/
But more recent studies show that cholesterol in food has little impact on the levels of cholesterol in your blood – most cholesterol in the blood is made by the liver

These are some of the most reputable sources in the World. I can find way more, but got bored. So if you want scientific consensus, there it is. Some niche dietary magazine/website is not it.
There are few things that will get you as much scientific consensus as this.

To find these I just searched "Are eggs healthy" and the corresponding organisation, meaning if they thought they where bad, that result would have come up as well.

Something being hard to prove doesn't somehow make it more reasonable to believe. The scientific consensus is obviously that all trans-fats are harmful (nutritional authorities, that have nothing to do with the vegan movement, are advising against the consumption of natural trans-fats as well as the artificial ones), so the burden of proof is one who claims some trans-fats aren't harmful. The fact that it's hard to prove doesn't mean we should, for some reason, lower the standards for accepting that claim.

As shown above, I think you have a misconception of what the scientific consensus actually says. I can do exactly the same as I did with eggs as with Trans-fats, and show the views of the most reputable health organisations of the world. I know I can, because I did real research while having this conversation. (Thanks for that BTW, I learnt a lot)

Also, you cant place the burden of proof on someone to prove a negative claim. Otherwise you would have to prove that everything from Nuts to Apples are not harmful. We presume things are not harmful, and accumulate knowledge to know they are harmful (if they are). Otherwise we would not be able to eat anything at all. Additionally, everything comes with Terms and Conditions. If you read my links above, you will notice they limit how many eggs they recommend you eat. If you dig into the studies, you find it is because they only tested up to one egg a day. Additionally, certain people will have a harder time with eggs than others. I could probably easily get away with 4 eggs a day, but someone else may have issues with 1 a week. We are human, soft squishy biological things, not identical machines.

Oh, I realized that I used the World Heath Organisation as a reference. So even though they are the single most recognized health association in the world, you may be American and a Trump supporter. So you may think they are no longer worth anything. So to keep you covered, I got a source for
The United States Department of Health & Human Services AKA Dept of Health (USA) - https://www.hhs.gov/fitness/eat-healthy/how-to-eat-healthy/index.html
What Represents a Healthy Eating Pattern?
Many Americans consume less than ideal amounts of certain nutrients needed for a healthy diet. To put you on the path to improving your health through nutrition, the Guidelines recommend including the following components when developing your healthy eating pattern:

A variety of vegetables: dark green, red and orange, legumes (beans and peas), starchy and other vegetables.
Fruits, especially whole fruit.

Grains, at least half of which are whole grain.

Fat-free or low-fat dairy, including milk, yogurt, cheese, and/or fortified soy beverages.

A variety of protein foods, including seafood, lean meats and poultry, eggs, legumes (beans and peas), soy products, and nuts and seeds.

Oils, including those from plants: canola, corn, olive, peanut, safflower, soybean, and sunflower. Oils also are naturally present in nuts, seeds, seafood, olives, and avocados.

Vegans like to compare their diet to the SAD (Standard American Diet). And I agree, it is healthier

The SAD promotes obesity, diabetes, cancer and disease

People who are 'vegan' make a conscious effort to take control of their health and eating. You can still eat shitty foods on a vegan diet mind you. But vegans will often compare the absolute best of a vegan diet (and lifestyle) to the worst of the SAD.

There exists a healthy eating plan that still incorporates animal products. It really is all about moderation and balance. Not to mention LIFESTYLE

It doesn't matter how healthy you eat. If your a couch potato you are going to be unhealthy vs someone who is fit and active

Vegans like to compare their diet to the SAD (Standard American Diet). And I agree, it is healthier

The SAD promotes obesity, diabetes, cancer and disease

People who are 'vegan' make a conscious effort to take control of their health and eating. You can still eat shitty foods on a vegan diet mind you. But vegans will often compare the absolute best of a vegan diet (and lifestyle) to the worst of the SAD.

There exists a healthy eating plan that still incorporates animal products. It really is all about moderation and balance. Not to mention LIFESTYLE

It doesn't matter how healthy you eat. If your a couch potato you are going to be unhealthy vs someone who is fit and active

I never knew what the Standard American Diets was until now.
Holy crap, how are you people still alive!


There is another thing that tends to skew the results when it comes to Vegan Diets compared to the average diet (SAD). Being a Vegan is a lot more work and takes a lot more thought. So you are comparing a person with a near obsession with diet to someone who never thinks about it. If you compare Vegans to other health conscious people, how do they do? I dont know, and also dont know if there are comparable studies.

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2020, 04:19:55 AM

Vegans like to compare their diet to the SAD (Standard American Diet). And I agree, it is healthier

The SAD promotes obesity, diabetes, cancer and disease

People who are 'vegan' make a conscious effort to take control of their health and eating. You can still eat shitty foods on a vegan diet mind you. But vegans will often compare the absolute best of a vegan diet (and lifestyle) to the worst of the SAD.

There exists a healthy eating plan that still incorporates animal products. It really is all about moderation and balance. Not to mention LIFESTYLE

It doesn't matter how healthy you eat. If your a couch potato you are going to be unhealthy vs someone who is fit and active

I never knew what the Standard American Diets was until now.
Holy crap, how are you people still alive!


There is another thing that tends to skew the results when it comes to Vegan Diets compared to the average diet (SAD). Being a Vegan is a lot more work and takes a lot more thought. So you are comparing a person with a near obsession with diet to someone who never thinks about it. If you compare Vegans to other health conscious people, how do they do? I dont know, and also dont know if there are comparable studies.

The American diet is promoted to us in order to make profits for the various industries. Corn, and cattle mostly.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on April 17, 2020, 04:36:27 AM

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2020, 04:19:55 AM

Vegans like to compare their diet to the SAD (Standard American Diet). And I agree, it is healthier

The SAD promotes obesity, diabetes, cancer and disease

People who are 'vegan' make a conscious effort to take control of their health and eating. You can still eat shitty foods on a vegan diet mind you. But vegans will often compare the absolute best of a vegan diet (and lifestyle) to the worst of the SAD.

There exists a healthy eating plan that still incorporates animal products. It really is all about moderation and balance. Not to mention LIFESTYLE

It doesn't matter how healthy you eat. If your a couch potato you are going to be unhealthy vs someone who is fit and active

I never knew what the Standard American Diets was until now.
Holy crap, how are you people still alive!


There is another thing that tends to skew the results when it comes to Vegan Diets compared to the average diet (SAD). Being a Vegan is a lot more work and takes a lot more thought. So you are comparing a person with a near obsession with diet to someone who never thinks about it. If you compare Vegans to other health conscious people, how do they do? I dont know, and also dont know if there are comparable studies.

The American diet is promoted to us in order to make profits for the various industries. Corn, and cattle mostly.

It's actually SAD it's called a 'standard' lol

Personally, I think that "typical" would be a better term than "standard".

You are exploiting the poor bees!

Ethical veganism applies to animals that are conscious, that have a sufficiently developed nerve system to feel suffering. Per Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, those are birds, mammals and perhaps octopuses. So, unless you assume animal psychology is completely wrong, ethical veganism doesn't apply to bees.

And those associations say eggs are fine

I haven't studied it that much and I am a bit surprised, to be honest. Well, my guess is that what's going on is that they are afraid that people will misinterpret their advices. Maybe they are thinking "Well, eggs and avocado are harmful, but if we tell people that, they might replace them with coconuts, butter or something high in sugar, and that's even worse.". I don't think any nutritional authority would recommend butter or even coconuts (except perhaps as an experimental treatment of epilepsy, because there is some evidence that coconuts help against epilepsy, although there appears to be no scientific explanation for how they might).

Also, you cant place the burden of proof on someone to prove a negative claim.

I don't think so. I think that saying "Well, maybe most trans-fats cause heart disease, but this one doesn't." is an ad-hoc hypothesis and bears the burden of proof. The simplest explanation is that all trans-fats and all forms of saturated fat cause heart disease, and one who claims a more complicated hypothesis bears the burden of proof.

So you are comparing a person with a near obsession with diet to someone who never thinks about it.

Well, that's one of the reasons why nutritionists generally don't take epidemiological studies seriously.

Quote from: Shifter

You are exploiting the poor bees!

Ethical veganism applies to animals that are conscious, that have a sufficiently developed nerve system to feel suffering. Per Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, those are birds, mammals and perhaps octopuses. So, unless you assume animal psychology is completely wrong, ethical veganism doesn't apply to bees.

Well I can find plenty of egg heads out there that do believe bees in particular have a consciousness. Science is learning more and more about how insects minds work and just because it different, doesn't invalidate their significance.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-02-21/bumblebee-objects-across-senses/11981304

Maybe ethical veganism should apply to bees given how important they are to the survival of not only the human race, but for many living things (including plants) on the planet.

And you exploit billions of them to serve your ends just so you can have your smashed avo on toast and wash it down with some almond milk! Humph! 

Quote from: FlatAssembler on April 17, 2020, 09:53:29 AM

Quote from: Shifter

You are exploiting the poor bees!

Ethical veganism applies to animals that are conscious, that have a sufficiently developed nerve system to feel suffering. Per Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, those are birds, mammals and perhaps octopuses. So, unless you assume animal psychology is completely wrong, ethical veganism doesn't apply to bees.

Well I can find plenty of egg heads out there that do believe bees in particular have a consciousness. Science is learning more and more about how insects minds work and just because it different, doesn't invalidate their significance.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-02-21/bumblebee-objects-across-senses/11981304

Maybe ethical veganism should apply to bees given how important they are to the survival of not only the human race, but for many living things (including plants) on the planet.

And you exploit billions of them to serve your ends just so you can have your smashed avo on toast and wash it down with some almond milk! Humph! 

Once you realize the Earth isn't flat, you will start to value scientific consensus more. And this claim that bees are capable of recognizing by sight things they haven't seen before is extremely dubious, because not even humans can do that. Humans that have been blind since birth and gain sight later in life via some surgery generally can't recognize things by sight.

Quote from: Shifter on April 17, 2020, 10:09:44 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on April 17, 2020, 09:53:29 AM

Quote from: Shifter

You are exploiting the poor bees!

Ethical veganism applies to animals that are conscious, that have a sufficiently developed nerve system to feel suffering. Per Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, those are birds, mammals and perhaps octopuses. So, unless you assume animal psychology is completely wrong, ethical veganism doesn't apply to bees.

Well I can find plenty of egg heads out there that do believe bees in particular have a consciousness. Science is learning more and more about how insects minds work and just because it different, doesn't invalidate their significance.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-02-21/bumblebee-objects-across-senses/11981304

Maybe ethical veganism should apply to bees given how important they are to the survival of not only the human race, but for many living things (including plants) on the planet.

And you exploit billions of them to serve your ends just so you can have your smashed avo on toast and wash it down with some almond milk! Humph! 

Once you realize the Earth isn't flat, you will start to value scientific consensus more. And this claim that bees are capable of recognizing by sight things they haven't seen before is extremely dubious, because not even humans can do that. Humans that have been blind since birth and gain sight later in life via some surgery generally can't recognize things by sight.

That's not the only study into bees and determining the consciousness by the way. There are plenty that are finding out that bees posses a level of sentience we dont appreciate

I dont think you read the article properly. Obviously its difficult for you to come to terms with the fact that you have not been a very good and ethical vegan and thus read the article selectively and with your confirmation bias

Honestly I feel more for bees than I do for cows. Because humanity can do without cows. We cant do without bees. If bees went extinct, so does a shitload of life on Earth. We should be much kinder to the bees

Are you not concerned about their dwindling numbers?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/02/bumblebees-going-extinct-climate-change-pesticides/

Or even as a so called vegan do you not care about killing and exploitation of bees

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf

And those associations say eggs are fine

I haven't studied it that much and I am a bit surprised, to be honest. Well, my guess is that what's going on is that they are afraid that people will misinterpret their advices. Maybe they are thinking "Well, eggs and avocado are harmful, but if we tell people that, they might replace them with coconuts, butter or something high in sugar, and that's even worse.". I don't think any nutritional authority would recommend butter or even coconuts (except perhaps as an experimental treatment of epilepsy, because there is some evidence that coconuts help against epilepsy, although there appears to be no scientific explanation for how they might).

Your not being honest to yourself here.
I gave you direct research studies and then showed you the scientific consensus on a topic, something you requested. You have now created a conspiracy theory to justify your views. Your bias is showing. I can only suggest you go ready the literature, the sources I gave are solid, but find your own.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf

Also, you cant place the burden of proof on someone to prove a negative claim.

I don't think so. I think that saying "Well, maybe most trans-fats cause heart disease, but this one doesn't." is an ad-hoc hypothesis and bears the burden of proof. The simplest explanation is that all trans-fats and all forms of saturated fat cause heart disease, and one who claims a more complicated hypothesis bears the burden of proof.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf

So you are comparing a person with a near obsession with diet to someone who never thinks about it.

Well, that's one of the reasons why nutritionists generally don't take epidemiological studies seriously.

I actually have already shown you studies that showed that not all Trans-fats are that bad, especially if they are from animal products. Artificial trans-fats are however shown to be terrible. So the burden has been paid. Read up on those if you are going to insist that they are bad. Alternatively accept that you dont want to know, which is also fine I suppose.

What I was saying about burden of proof is, that you cant prove everything is safe. That is trying to make a negative claim. It is literally impossible to prove that something can never cause harm. We can only give a level of confidence. This applies as much to trans-fats as it does to walnuts.

epidemiological studies, like all studies, need to be read with careful skepticism, a good paper however always lists its own short comings. A meta analysis, generally can get around these if it is well done. And when you do a meta analysis on hundreds of epidemiological studies, you get close to something you can start taking very seriously. So dont throw the baby out with the bath water.
However, I agree with your general sentiment, epidemiological studies should be read with a lot of skepticism. Especially when you read "we contacted 1000 participants over social media", cause that is just rubbish and I have read enough of those.

Im not going to discuss the ethical dilemmas for vegans. I am ill qualified to comment on this so late at night, maybe ill try to pick it up later.

That's not the only study into bees and determining the consciousness by the way. There are plenty that are finding out that bees posses a level of sentience we dont appreciate

If somebody claiming bees posses super-human mental capabilities doesn't trigger your nonsense detectors, then I can't help you. And even if that were true, I don't see any particular reason to think a vegan diet would somehow cause more suffering to the bees. Feeding cows with grain, as it usually done today, involves a lot of transportation, and many insects (including many bees) are killed by that transportation.

Are you not concerned about their dwindling numbers?

No, because such stories are usually nonsense fear-mongering. They have told us the same about polar bears, when almost no scientist believed that, and, of course, it turned out to be false.

You have now created a conspiracy theory to justify your views.

It's not really a conspiracy theory. But if you don't understand why the Earth isn't flat, I don't think you can understand that. If something sounds crazy, like that eggs and avocado don't cause heart disease (or, for that sake, that the Earth is flat), it almost always is. But you probably can't see why...
But let's try it this way, I am not saying WHO is in a conspiracy to say eggs and avocados are safe, I am saying they are thinking that simply telling people to avoid eggs and avocados might lead to them replacing them with something even worse. A conspiracy would be if they were knowingly lying or keeping a secret to achieve some evil end.

What I was saying about burden of proof is, that you cant prove everything is safe.

Really? Well, let's say you walk into a forest and are feeling hungry. Would you pick up a random plant, assume it's safe to eat and eat it, just because, as far as you know, it hasn't been proven to be unsafe? Obviously, the burden of proof is on one who claims it's safe.
And this situation is even worse than that. It's more like if you weren't sure if that plant was safe to eat, but you knew a plant closely related to it was deadly poisonous. So, the burden of proof is even higher.
But it's even worse than that. It's that your textbook is telling you that plant, as well as plants related to it, are deadly poisonous, and somebody claims that that particular plant actually isn't. That's now a very high burden of proof.

And when you do a meta analysis on hundreds of epidemiological studies, you get close to something you can start taking very seriously.

Actually, no. A huge number of epidemiological studies supposedly showing fish protects against heart disease is not enough to prove omega-3-acids protect against heart disease, they can also be interpreted as showing that people who eat fish consistently eat less red meat (which contains a lot more saturated fat that causes heart disease). Similarly, a large number of epidemiological studies failing to find a link between sugar and diabetes should be interpreted as showing that people who eat less sugar tend to eat other things that cause diabetes (saturated fat, honey...).

So you think the changing climate, pesticide use, destruction of land for agriculture or residential /industrial use or the fires just recently here in Australia had no impact on bee populations.

Got it!

Do you know that honey contains bee legs? The way honey is extracted is not kind to the bees. All bits if bees can be found in honey

You vegans really don't give a damn. You just think calling yourself a vegan label makes you somehow morally superior to the rest if us but in truth, you're all the same.

Too inconvenient to be a REAL vegan so you cherry pick what's easy so dismiss animals even if they are critical to our bio diversity just because they have 6 legs.

The elitism of your kind is mind boggling

It's not really a conspiracy theory. But if you don't understand why the Earth isn't flat, I don't think you can understand that. If something sounds crazy, like that eggs and avocado don't cause heart disease (or, for that sake, that the Earth is flat), it almost always is. But you probably can't see why...
But let's try it this way, I am not saying WHO is in a conspiracy to say eggs and avocados are safe, I am saying they are thinking that simply telling people to avoid eggs and avocados might lead to them replacing them with something even worse. A conspiracy would be if they were knowingly lying or keeping a secret to achieve some evil end.

Or, they are just telling it the way it is. Eggs are not bad, the science shows its not bad. The scientific consensus says its not bad. So there is a good chance IT IS NOT BAD.
Find me more recent scientific evidence that points the other way, then we have a real discussion again. But right now, it seems you have massive bias against non-vegan diets and you cant see past them.

I think honey is great. If people farm with honey the guarantee the survival and health of bee populations. There is a good chance that no one would have ever heard of bee colony collapse if it was not for bee keepers.

If bee's are sentient, they are more than welcome to hold a petition that we should stop using honey. For all you know, they want us to use their honey.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on April 18, 2020, 02:19:54 PM

It's not really a conspiracy theory. But if you don't understand why the Earth isn't flat, I don't think you can understand that. If something sounds crazy, like that eggs and avocado don't cause heart disease (or, for that sake, that the Earth is flat), it almost always is. But you probably can't see why...
But let's try it this way, I am not saying WHO is in a conspiracy to say eggs and avocados are safe, I am saying they are thinking that simply telling people to avoid eggs and avocados might lead to them replacing them with something even worse. A conspiracy would be if they were knowingly lying or keeping a secret to achieve some evil end.

Or, they are just telling it the way it is. Eggs are not bad, the science shows its not bad. The scientific consensus says its not bad. So there is a good chance IT IS NOT BAD.
Find me more recent scientific evidence that points the other way, then we have a real discussion again. But right now, it seems you have massive bias against non-vegan diets and you cant see past them.

I think honey is great. If people farm with honey the guarantee the survival and health of bee populations. There is a good chance that no one would have ever heard of bee colony collapse if it was not for bee keepers.

If bee's are sentient, they are more than welcome to hold a petition that we should stop using honey. For all you know, they want us to use their honey.

There's a line in a movie 'John Dies at the End' (brilliant movie by the way)

"Do the bees know they make the honey for you, or do they work tirelessly because they think it is their own choice?"

 

"Do the bees know they make the honey for you, or do they work tirelessly because they think it is their own choice?"

There is another option. Bees make honey because they need to, and are programmed (by natural processes) to do that.
Humans are subject to that same programming, we are just generally to arrogant to realize it.

I dont think any bee has ever had a thought about us as anything other than something that invades their nest once in a while. Bees make honey because its part of their evolutionary path, without honey, they wont be bees. No bee ever woke up one day and said, you know, I think Id rather be a butterfly.

Do you know that honey contains bee legs?

Mine does not.  I have a servant pull them out before spreading it on my toast. 

One has to have standards.

Mine does not.  I have a servant pull them out before spreading it on my toast. 

One has to have standards.

If you had any class you would fry them up with some parsley and hazelnuts.
Pairs well with a Pino or Merlot.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on April 19, 2020, 05:59:36 AM

Mine does not.  I have a servant pull them out before spreading it on my toast. 

One has to have standards.

If you had any class you would fry them up with some parsley and hazelnuts.
Pairs well with a Pino or Merlot.

Bee body parts should also add protein. It helps to balance out the high sugar load of the honey as well as slowing the rate of digestion lowering the overall GI