Peer Ederer's Arguments against Vegetarianism

You know, I feel like discussing such things with Flat-Earthers is such a waste of time. The obvious truth is that poorly planned low-carb diets massively increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency and magnesium deficiency. That's partly why scurvy has increased in recent years: foods that people used to get vitamin C from are now being demonized. If veganism is to be blamed for vitamin B12 deficiency in the developed world, then it's completely fair to blame the low-carb craze for the rise in scurvy.

More claims without any references lol

You say scurvy has increased like its endemic. All I found was this

www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-35380716

27% increase sounds like a lot until you notice in a country of millions and the initial number of admissions it's only a few people. And lots of them are still kids. I don't think parents are putting their kids on low carb keto diets lol

Matbe you can share where you learned of this most serious case afflicting humanity?

'low carb craze' lol. The low carb diet around the world is still quite niche. I'd bet there are many more people not on any diet (ie just eat whatever is around without a plan) or eating very poorly liked the 'standard American diet'. Cost of living pressures and increased poverty would be a bigger reason people are malnourished. Not because of choice.

You obviously like cherry picking or flagrantly making things up to suit your bias.

Again, I have to point out that you can eat well, or eat shit on a keto diet. If you don't do your research and don't have much money (or devote your money) to buying good healthy foods, chances are you will eat poorly on keto from your bodies health perspective

Spend the effort and you can eat well and remain healthy. Remember, you can still eat like 50g of carbs a day. Carbs are not shunned

And as for your precious vegan diet.... You can eat well or eat shit. There are healthy vegans and there are malnourished vegans.

Most vegans are a bit goofy. They probably need a little protein.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on May 31, 2020, 06:29:51 AM

You know, I feel like discussing such things with Flat-Earthers is such a waste of time. The obvious truth is that poorly planned low-carb diets massively increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency and magnesium deficiency. That's partly why scurvy has increased in recent years: foods that people used to get vitamin C from are now being demonized. If veganism is to be blamed for vitamin B12 deficiency in the developed world, then it's completely fair to blame the low-carb craze for the rise in scurvy.

More claims without any references lol

You say scurvy has increased like its endemic. All I found was this

www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-35380716

27% increase sounds like a lot until you notice in a country of millions and the initial number of admissions it's only a few people. And lots of them are still kids. I don't think parents are putting their kids on low carb keto diets lol

Matbe you can share where you learned of this most serious case afflicting humanity?

'low carb craze' lol. The low carb diet around the world is still quite niche. I'd bet there are many more people not on any diet (ie just eat whatever is around without a plan) or eating very poorly liked the 'standard American diet'. Cost of living pressures and increased poverty would be a bigger reason people are malnourished. Not because of choice.

You obviously like cherry picking or flagrantly making things up to suit your bias.

Again, I have to point out that you can eat well, or eat shit on a keto diet. If you don't do your research and don't have much money (or devote your money) to buying good healthy foods, chances are you will eat poorly on keto from your bodies health perspective

Spend the effort and you can eat well and remain healthy. Remember, you can still eat like 50g of carbs a day. Carbs are not shunned

And as for your precious vegan diet.... You can eat well or eat shit. There are healthy vegans and there are malnourished vegans.

If somebody claims a vegan diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency, but doesn't notice the corollary for the keto diet (that it may lead to vitamin C deficiency and, I assume less likely, to magnesium deficiency), then he is having double standards.
What is a low-starch vegetable? Potato, which used to be a major source of vitamin C in diets of many people, has 18 grams of starch per 100 grams, and it obviously isn't. Spinach and kale obviously are, they contain 1 or 2 grams of starch per 100 grams. Is broccoli, with 7 grams of starch per 100 grams, low-starch? Hard to tell.

Quote from: Shifter on May 31, 2020, 03:18:54 PM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on May 31, 2020, 06:29:51 AM

You know, I feel like discussing such things with Flat-Earthers is such a waste of time. The obvious truth is that poorly planned low-carb diets massively increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency and magnesium deficiency. That's partly why scurvy has increased in recent years: foods that people used to get vitamin C from are now being demonized. If veganism is to be blamed for vitamin B12 deficiency in the developed world, then it's completely fair to blame the low-carb craze for the rise in scurvy.

More claims without any references lol

You say scurvy has increased like its endemic. All I found was this

www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-35380716

27% increase sounds like a lot until you notice in a country of millions and the initial number of admissions it's only a few people. And lots of them are still kids. I don't think parents are putting their kids on low carb keto diets lol

Matbe you can share where you learned of this most serious case afflicting humanity?

'low carb craze' lol. The low carb diet around the world is still quite niche. I'd bet there are many more people not on any diet (ie just eat whatever is around without a plan) or eating very poorly liked the 'standard American diet'. Cost of living pressures and increased poverty would be a bigger reason people are malnourished. Not because of choice.

You obviously like cherry picking or flagrantly making things up to suit your bias.

Again, I have to point out that you can eat well, or eat shit on a keto diet. If you don't do your research and don't have much money (or devote your money) to buying good healthy foods, chances are you will eat poorly on keto from your bodies health perspective

Spend the effort and you can eat well and remain healthy. Remember, you can still eat like 50g of carbs a day. Carbs are not shunned

And as for your precious vegan diet.... You can eat well or eat shit. There are healthy vegans and there are malnourished vegans.

If somebody claims a vegan diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency, but doesn't notice the corollary for the keto diet (that it may lead to vitamin C deficiency and, I assume less likely, to magnesium deficiency), then he is having double standards.
What is a low-starch vegetable? Potato, which used to be a major source of vitamin C in diets of many people, has 18 grams of starch per 100 grams, and it obviously isn't. Spinach and kale obviously are, they contain 1 or 2 grams of starch per 100 grams. Is broccoli, with 7 grams of starch per 100 grams, low-starch? Hard to tell.

You can eat a vegan diet and get B12 today and you can eat a keto diet and get vitamin C. Conversely you can eat these diets and be far more deficient in many nutrients, including B12 and vitamin C

How is this concept so hard for you to grasp

My argument is that not everyone can be healthy being vegan. Or should be vegan. You think an Australian aboriginal man living in the remote outback away from supermarkets and money can go 'I can be healthier if I am vegan!' How could they have survived 60,000 years on this continent with such a mindset?

There is no singular diet that can encompass everyone's circumstance, genetics, wealth and location. Modern day technology and a globalised world has given us choice. That's it.

Quote from: FlatAssembler on June 01, 2020, 02:53:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on May 31, 2020, 03:18:54 PM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on May 31, 2020, 06:29:51 AM

You know, I feel like discussing such things with Flat-Earthers is such a waste of time. The obvious truth is that poorly planned low-carb diets massively increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency and magnesium deficiency. That's partly why scurvy has increased in recent years: foods that people used to get vitamin C from are now being demonized. If veganism is to be blamed for vitamin B12 deficiency in the developed world, then it's completely fair to blame the low-carb craze for the rise in scurvy.

More claims without any references lol

You say scurvy has increased like its endemic. All I found was this

www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-35380716

27% increase sounds like a lot until you notice in a country of millions and the initial number of admissions it's only a few people. And lots of them are still kids. I don't think parents are putting their kids on low carb keto diets lol

Matbe you can share where you learned of this most serious case afflicting humanity?

'low carb craze' lol. The low carb diet around the world is still quite niche. I'd bet there are many more people not on any diet (ie just eat whatever is around without a plan) or eating very poorly liked the 'standard American diet'. Cost of living pressures and increased poverty would be a bigger reason people are malnourished. Not because of choice.

You obviously like cherry picking or flagrantly making things up to suit your bias.

Again, I have to point out that you can eat well, or eat shit on a keto diet. If you don't do your research and don't have much money (or devote your money) to buying good healthy foods, chances are you will eat poorly on keto from your bodies health perspective

Spend the effort and you can eat well and remain healthy. Remember, you can still eat like 50g of carbs a day. Carbs are not shunned

And as for your precious vegan diet.... You can eat well or eat shit. There are healthy vegans and there are malnourished vegans.

If somebody claims a vegan diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency, but doesn't notice the corollary for the keto diet (that it may lead to vitamin C deficiency and, I assume less likely, to magnesium deficiency), then he is having double standards.
What is a low-starch vegetable? Potato, which used to be a major source of vitamin C in diets of many people, has 18 grams of starch per 100 grams, and it obviously isn't. Spinach and kale obviously are, they contain 1 or 2 grams of starch per 100 grams. Is broccoli, with 7 grams of starch per 100 grams, low-starch? Hard to tell.

You can eat a vegan diet and get B12 today and you can eat a keto diet and get vitamin C. Conversely you can eat these diets and be far more deficient in many nutrients, including B12 and vitamin C

How is this concept so hard for you to grasp

My argument is that not everyone can be healthy being vegan. Or should be vegan. You think an Australian aboriginal man living in the remote outback away from supermarkets and money can go 'I can be healthier if I am vegan!' How could they have survived 60,000 years on this continent with such a mindset?

There is no singular diet that can encompass everyone's circumstance, genetics, wealth and location. Modern day technology and a globalised world has given us choice. That's it.

How can you know, with reasonable certainty, what the diets of Australian Aboriginals were? How do you know they ate any significant amount of meat?

Quote from: Shifter on June 01, 2020, 05:00:19 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on June 01, 2020, 02:53:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on May 31, 2020, 03:18:54 PM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on May 31, 2020, 06:29:51 AM

You know, I feel like discussing such things with Flat-Earthers is such a waste of time. The obvious truth is that poorly planned low-carb diets massively increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency and magnesium deficiency. That's partly why scurvy has increased in recent years: foods that people used to get vitamin C from are now being demonized. If veganism is to be blamed for vitamin B12 deficiency in the developed world, then it's completely fair to blame the low-carb craze for the rise in scurvy.

More claims without any references lol

You say scurvy has increased like its endemic. All I found was this

www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-35380716

27% increase sounds like a lot until you notice in a country of millions and the initial number of admissions it's only a few people. And lots of them are still kids. I don't think parents are putting their kids on low carb keto diets lol

Matbe you can share where you learned of this most serious case afflicting humanity?

'low carb craze' lol. The low carb diet around the world is still quite niche. I'd bet there are many more people not on any diet (ie just eat whatever is around without a plan) or eating very poorly liked the 'standard American diet'. Cost of living pressures and increased poverty would be a bigger reason people are malnourished. Not because of choice.

You obviously like cherry picking or flagrantly making things up to suit your bias.

Again, I have to point out that you can eat well, or eat shit on a keto diet. If you don't do your research and don't have much money (or devote your money) to buying good healthy foods, chances are you will eat poorly on keto from your bodies health perspective

Spend the effort and you can eat well and remain healthy. Remember, you can still eat like 50g of carbs a day. Carbs are not shunned

And as for your precious vegan diet.... You can eat well or eat shit. There are healthy vegans and there are malnourished vegans.

If somebody claims a vegan diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency, but doesn't notice the corollary for the keto diet (that it may lead to vitamin C deficiency and, I assume less likely, to magnesium deficiency), then he is having double standards.
What is a low-starch vegetable? Potato, which used to be a major source of vitamin C in diets of many people, has 18 grams of starch per 100 grams, and it obviously isn't. Spinach and kale obviously are, they contain 1 or 2 grams of starch per 100 grams. Is broccoli, with 7 grams of starch per 100 grams, low-starch? Hard to tell.

You can eat a vegan diet and get B12 today and you can eat a keto diet and get vitamin C. Conversely you can eat these diets and be far more deficient in many nutrients, including B12 and vitamin C

How is this concept so hard for you to grasp

My argument is that not everyone can be healthy being vegan. Or should be vegan. You think an Australian aboriginal man living in the remote outback away from supermarkets and money can go 'I can be healthier if I am vegan!' How could they have survived 60,000 years on this continent with such a mindset?

There is no singular diet that can encompass everyone's circumstance, genetics, wealth and location. Modern day technology and a globalised world has given us choice. That's it.

How can you know, with reasonable certainty, what the diets of Australian Aboriginals were? How do you know they ate any significant amount of meat?

They were hunters. What were their spears and boomerangs for? Knocking a berry off a bush? They didn't come face to face with an animal and overpowered by some weird moral compass decide to starve instead of eat it to survive.

Are you serious? Is that your counter argument? Lol God damn that is weak

https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-facts/healthy-eating/health-and-wellbeing-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people/

Wild meats, game and fish. As well as grubs and creepy crawlies from the bush. Doesn't sound very vegan does it

Please, for your own sake, stop demonstrating your ignorance on this topic. Come back when you learn more about it. This circle jerk arguing is tiresome lol

Quote from: FlatAssembler on June 02, 2020, 06:36:54 AM

Quote from: Shifter on June 01, 2020, 05:00:19 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on June 01, 2020, 02:53:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on May 31, 2020, 03:18:54 PM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on May 31, 2020, 06:29:51 AM

You know, I feel like discussing such things with Flat-Earthers is such a waste of time. The obvious truth is that poorly planned low-carb diets massively increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency and magnesium deficiency. That's partly why scurvy has increased in recent years: foods that people used to get vitamin C from are now being demonized. If veganism is to be blamed for vitamin B12 deficiency in the developed world, then it's completely fair to blame the low-carb craze for the rise in scurvy.

More claims without any references lol

You say scurvy has increased like its endemic. All I found was this

www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-35380716

27% increase sounds like a lot until you notice in a country of millions and the initial number of admissions it's only a few people. And lots of them are still kids. I don't think parents are putting their kids on low carb keto diets lol

Matbe you can share where you learned of this most serious case afflicting humanity?

'low carb craze' lol. The low carb diet around the world is still quite niche. I'd bet there are many more people not on any diet (ie just eat whatever is around without a plan) or eating very poorly liked the 'standard American diet'. Cost of living pressures and increased poverty would be a bigger reason people are malnourished. Not because of choice.

You obviously like cherry picking or flagrantly making things up to suit your bias.

Again, I have to point out that you can eat well, or eat shit on a keto diet. If you don't do your research and don't have much money (or devote your money) to buying good healthy foods, chances are you will eat poorly on keto from your bodies health perspective

Spend the effort and you can eat well and remain healthy. Remember, you can still eat like 50g of carbs a day. Carbs are not shunned

And as for your precious vegan diet.... You can eat well or eat shit. There are healthy vegans and there are malnourished vegans.

If somebody claims a vegan diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency, but doesn't notice the corollary for the keto diet (that it may lead to vitamin C deficiency and, I assume less likely, to magnesium deficiency), then he is having double standards.
What is a low-starch vegetable? Potato, which used to be a major source of vitamin C in diets of many people, has 18 grams of starch per 100 grams, and it obviously isn't. Spinach and kale obviously are, they contain 1 or 2 grams of starch per 100 grams. Is broccoli, with 7 grams of starch per 100 grams, low-starch? Hard to tell.

You can eat a vegan diet and get B12 today and you can eat a keto diet and get vitamin C. Conversely you can eat these diets and be far more deficient in many nutrients, including B12 and vitamin C

How is this concept so hard for you to grasp

My argument is that not everyone can be healthy being vegan. Or should be vegan. You think an Australian aboriginal man living in the remote outback away from supermarkets and money can go 'I can be healthier if I am vegan!' How could they have survived 60,000 years on this continent with such a mindset?

There is no singular diet that can encompass everyone's circumstance, genetics, wealth and location. Modern day technology and a globalised world has given us choice. That's it.

How can you know, with reasonable certainty, what the diets of Australian Aboriginals were? How do you know they ate any significant amount of meat?

They were hunters. What were their spears and boomerangs for? Knocking a berry off a bush? They didn't come face to face with an animal and overpowered by some weird moral compass decide to starve instead of eat it to survive.

Are you serious? Is that your counter argument? Lol God damn that is weak

https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-facts/healthy-eating/health-and-wellbeing-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people/

Wild meats, game and fish. As well as grubs and creepy crawlies from the bush. Doesn't sound very vegan does it

Please, for your own sake, stop demonstrating your ignorance on this topic. Come back when you learn more about it. This circle jerk arguing is tiresome lol

I don't doubt they ate some meat. But did they eat as much meat as we eat today? Highly doubtful.
As far as I understand, you have two arguments:
1) Meat isn't unhealthy because people used to eat it for a very long time.
The problem with that is, for example, that people also used to eat honey for quite some time. And honey clearly causes type-2-diabetes. People in prehistoric times didn't eat as much honey (or, its nutritional near-equivalent, sugar) as we eat today.
2) Meat isn't unhealthy because that was the only way people in pre-historic times could get the micronutrients they need.
Hidden premise here is that meat is somehow inherently more nutritious than plants are. Why do you think that's the case? It's well-known that rabbit meat takes more vitamins to digest than what we can absorb from it (due to its high protein content), and that, if the only thing available for eating is rabbit meat, it's better to abstain from eating altogether. My guess would be that quite a lot of wild game is like that.

Quote from: Shifter on June 02, 2020, 02:05:09 PM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on June 02, 2020, 06:36:54 AM

Quote from: Shifter on June 01, 2020, 05:00:19 AM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on June 01, 2020, 02:53:37 AM

Quote from: Shifter on May 31, 2020, 03:18:54 PM

Quote from: FlatAssembler on May 31, 2020, 06:29:51 AM

You know, I feel like discussing such things with Flat-Earthers is such a waste of time. The obvious truth is that poorly planned low-carb diets massively increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency and magnesium deficiency. That's partly why scurvy has increased in recent years: foods that people used to get vitamin C from are now being demonized. If veganism is to be blamed for vitamin B12 deficiency in the developed world, then it's completely fair to blame the low-carb craze for the rise in scurvy.

More claims without any references lol

You say scurvy has increased like its endemic. All I found was this

www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-35380716

27% increase sounds like a lot until you notice in a country of millions and the initial number of admissions it's only a few people. And lots of them are still kids. I don't think parents are putting their kids on low carb keto diets lol

Matbe you can share where you learned of this most serious case afflicting humanity?

'low carb craze' lol. The low carb diet around the world is still quite niche. I'd bet there are many more people not on any diet (ie just eat whatever is around without a plan) or eating very poorly liked the 'standard American diet'. Cost of living pressures and increased poverty would be a bigger reason people are malnourished. Not because of choice.

You obviously like cherry picking or flagrantly making things up to suit your bias.

Again, I have to point out that you can eat well, or eat shit on a keto diet. If you don't do your research and don't have much money (or devote your money) to buying good healthy foods, chances are you will eat poorly on keto from your bodies health perspective

Spend the effort and you can eat well and remain healthy. Remember, you can still eat like 50g of carbs a day. Carbs are not shunned

And as for your precious vegan diet.... You can eat well or eat shit. There are healthy vegans and there are malnourished vegans.

If somebody claims a vegan diet may lead to vitamin B12 deficiency, but doesn't notice the corollary for the keto diet (that it may lead to vitamin C deficiency and, I assume less likely, to magnesium deficiency), then he is having double standards.
What is a low-starch vegetable? Potato, which used to be a major source of vitamin C in diets of many people, has 18 grams of starch per 100 grams, and it obviously isn't. Spinach and kale obviously are, they contain 1 or 2 grams of starch per 100 grams. Is broccoli, with 7 grams of starch per 100 grams, low-starch? Hard to tell.

You can eat a vegan diet and get B12 today and you can eat a keto diet and get vitamin C. Conversely you can eat these diets and be far more deficient in many nutrients, including B12 and vitamin C

How is this concept so hard for you to grasp

My argument is that not everyone can be healthy being vegan. Or should be vegan. You think an Australian aboriginal man living in the remote outback away from supermarkets and money can go 'I can be healthier if I am vegan!' How could they have survived 60,000 years on this continent with such a mindset?

There is no singular diet that can encompass everyone's circumstance, genetics, wealth and location. Modern day technology and a globalised world has given us choice. That's it.

How can you know, with reasonable certainty, what the diets of Australian Aboriginals were? How do you know they ate any significant amount of meat?

They were hunters. What were their spears and boomerangs for? Knocking a berry off a bush? They didn't come face to face with an animal and overpowered by some weird moral compass decide to starve instead of eat it to survive.

Are you serious? Is that your counter argument? Lol God damn that is weak

https://daa.asn.au/smart-eating-for-you/smart-eating-fast-facts/healthy-eating/health-and-wellbeing-of-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people/

Wild meats, game and fish. As well as grubs and creepy crawlies from the bush. Doesn't sound very vegan does it

Please, for your own sake, stop demonstrating your ignorance on this topic. Come back when you learn more about it. This circle jerk arguing is tiresome lol

I don't doubt they ate some meat. But did they eat as much meat as we eat today? Highly doubtful.
As far as I understand, you have two arguments:
1) Meat isn't unhealthy because people used to eat it for a very long time.
The problem with that is, for example, that people also used to eat honey for quite some time. And honey clearly causes type-2-diabetes. People in prehistoric times didn't eat as much honey (or, its nutritional near-equivalent, sugar) as we eat today.
2) Meat isn't unhealthy because that was the only way people in pre-historic times could get the micronutrients they need.
Hidden premise here is that meat is somehow inherently more nutritious than plants are. Why do you think that's the case? It's well-known that rabbit meat takes more vitamins to digest than what we can absorb from it (due to its high protein content), and that, if the only thing available for eating is rabbit meat, it's better to abstain from eating altogether. My guess would be that quite a lot of wild game is like that.

I never said meat isn't unhealthy because we ate it for a long time. Learn to comprehend. My view is that meat can be part of a healthy balanced diet!

Do you have evidence that honey causes type 2 diabetes? No one is advocating a diet that is full of honey. I doubt whether spreading less than a teaspoon on your bread or flavouring some milk etc is harmful. So please reference where honey causes Type 2 diabetes. You always make these outlandish claims but never reference them. The only thing I found about honey and Type 2 diabetes is that using it as a substitute for white refined sugar in people already with Type 2 diabetes has no benefit


Also vegans is a lot more than just forbidding eating of meat. Anything that had anything to do with an animal. So even wearing clothes that has fur, leather etc is not permitted. It's a lifestyle as well as a diet. FFS, how does that escape you?

So you doubt Aboriginals for the last 60,000 years ate some meat. LOL okay, so what did they eat that fulfilled their protein requirements? They are in a remote outback. No grocery stores, not much choice and without even an invention of the wheel, did not move much further than they could walk in a rugged outback. So you say they didn't even eat an ant or termite? Game meat also provides a lot of energy. Just because it takes a few extra vitamins to digest doesn't mean it should not be eaten. Christ do you think I say that is all they eat? They had a variety of plant foods as well as animal based foods And they also used to use animal skins/fur in clothing for cold nights etc

Aboriginals were not vegan.

Hell, one Aussie cop here came under a lot of social media fire because he posted a video of him stoning a wombat to death. His excuse? 'Oh I was just practicing my cultural heritage as an Aboriginal so that makes it OK'

Again, come back when you actually have a clue as to what you are talking about. And seriously learn to work on referencing your claims such as honey (obviously used as intended) causing Type 2 diabetes. No one says you should eat a jar of it a day by the way. It's clear you like going to absolute extremes no one advocates to justify your ridiculous statements

My view is that meat can be part of a healthy balanced diet!

A diet that doesn't avoid heme-iron can hardly be called a healthy diet, one that doesn't avoid saturated fat probably can't be either, and one that doesn't avoid excess methionine can't be either. A diet which includes red meat clearly fails all those criteria.

Do you have evidence that honey causes type 2 diabetes?

What magic would prevent all the fructose in honey from causing insulin resistance? Honey is nearly 50% fructose. If sugar causes type-2-diabetes, so does honey. Or are you also denying that sugar causes type-2-diabetes?
Look, I find it rather pointless to discuss such things with you, because you believe the Earth is flat, which means that even if I use scientifically right arguments, there is no reason to think you will accept them (for the same reason you don't accept the arguments for Earth being round).

so what did they eat that fulfilled their protein requirements?

Well, to be honest, I am not too familiar with which amino-acids are present in which wild plant that grows there. As far as I can tell, not being able to fulfill your protein requirements is a problem if you get all your protein from one plant. Many people around the world today get almost all of their protein from wheat, and, since wheat doesn't contain any significant amount of lysine, they get lysine deficient and have weaker immune systems. But I wouldn't expect such a problem to appear if you get protein from different plants. The data is hard to find, though.

Game meat also provides a lot of energy.

As far as I understand it, in case the glucose intake is adequate and there is no significant fructose intake (causing insulin resistance), your body derives exactly zero energy from meat.

Aboriginals were not vegan.

Nobody claimed they were. There was also a lot less reason to be vegan back then. Eating meat didn't cause superbacteria back then. It also didn't cause nearly as much animal suffering. Factory farmed cows live shorter than bisons do, bisons live about 12 years while factory farmed cows live around 7 years. Red junglefowls live for years, while factory farmed chickens live for weeks, months at most (if they aren't slaughtered, they die of problems caused by breeding very young).

Quote from: Shifter

My view is that meat can be part of a healthy balanced diet!

A diet that doesn't avoid heme-iron can hardly be called a healthy diet, one that doesn't avoid saturated fat probably can't be either, and one that doesn't avoid excess methionine can't be either. A diet which includes red meat clearly fails all those criteria.

Quote from: Shifter

Do you have evidence that honey causes type 2 diabetes?

What magic would prevent all the fructose in honey from causing insulin resistance? Honey is nearly 50% fructose. If sugar causes type-2-diabetes, so does honey. Or are you also denying that sugar causes type-2-diabetes?
Look, I find it rather pointless to discuss such things with you, because you believe the Earth is flat, which means that even if I use scientifically right arguments, there is no reason to think you will accept them (for the same reason you don't accept the arguments for Earth being round).

Quote from: Shifter

so what did they eat that fulfilled their protein requirements?

Well, to be honest, I am not too familiar with which amino-acids are present in which wild plant that grows there. As far as I can tell, not being able to fulfill your protein requirements is a problem if you get all your protein from one plant. Many people around the world today get almost all of their protein from wheat, and, since wheat doesn't contain any significant amount of lysine, they get lysine deficient and have weaker immune systems. But I wouldn't expect such a problem to appear if you get protein from different plants. The data is hard to find, though.

Quote from: Shifter

Game meat also provides a lot of energy.

As far as I understand it, in case the glucose intake is adequate and there is no significant fructose intake (causing insulin resistance), your body derives exactly zero energy from meat.

Quote from: Shifter

Aboriginals were not vegan.

Nobody claimed they were. There was also a lot less reason to be vegan back then. Eating meat didn't cause superbacteria back then. It also didn't cause nearly as much animal suffering. Factory farmed cows live shorter than bisons do, bisons live about 12 years while factory farmed cows live around 7 years. Red junglefowls live for years, while factory farmed chickens live for weeks, months at most (if they aren't slaughtered, they die of problems caused by breeding very young).

More ignorance. Not surprising

The argument about veganism which has been pondered on this thread is whether the human race could have evolved as vegans and be better for it. I claim that veganism can only be attained today in good health thanks to a globalized world and 21st century technology. Even then, the diet is not cheap. I also claim that the word 'vegan' is not synonymous with 'health' because you can eat pretty poorly with lots of processed junk/salt on a vegan diet

The link between sugar and type 2 diabetes is still unclear. It is not confirmed that sugar=diabetes. Do you know something that scientists the world over dont know?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317246

One such link

Even if it were true, we are talking excess sugar. A teapsoon of honey on a sandwich is not going to give you diabetes. If your worried about fructose and that its so evil, perhaps you should avoid all fruits. Seriously?  An Apple has over 20g of sugar. More than half of it fructose. Are you scared?

You say all the fructose in honey like its a shitload. A teaspoon of honey is not some dangerous amount. And if your smart with your eating, you would consume it with something fibrous like a sandwich which would slow the rate of digestion

Again. If you can provide a source for your claims that honey causes Type 2 diabetes, please share, or accept that it's just an 'old wives tale' you took as fact without checking

I'll let you in on a secret. If the Aboriginal race in Australia had your ideology when it comes to dieting, They would not have lasted 1 generation, let alone 60,000+ years lol.

You haven't used scientifically based arguments so why should I accept your nonsense as fact? You have not even referenced or sourced a single claim you have made.

If you can post a claim that says that honey causes Type 2 diabetes, that would be a good start

The link between sugar and type 2 diabetes is still unclear. It is not confirmed that sugar=diabetes. Do you know something that scientists the world over dont know?

I'm going with Shifter on this one.  Sugar does not cause Type 2 diabetes any more than jogging causes heart attacks.

Yes, if you have a serious heart condition and jog you can die from a heart attack.

Yes, if you are genetically predisposed to T2 eating sugar will accelerate your condition.

But there is no evidence that simply eating sugar gives you diabetes.  Now, sugar is still horrible for you, but that's not related to diabetes.

The link between sugar and type 2 diabetes is still unclear. It is not confirmed that sugar=diabetes. Do you know something that scientists the world over dont know?

Wow, you have an excellent instinct to listen to nonsense. I haven't heard of anybody claiming sugar can't cause type-2-diabetes. Not even sugar industry does that. The fact that fructose leads to insulin resistance, at least in large amounts, is just indisputable. What sugar industry is claiming is that the effect is negligible in the amounts that's eaten today, that is, that saturated fat, in the amounts that's eaten today, has much more effect. Which may or may not be true (it probably isn't), but that doesn't negate my point.
WHO first subscribed to the view that sugar, in the amounts that's eaten today, is probably harmless. Today, it doesn't:

The sugars guideline is also part of WHO’s effort to reach targets set by the Global Action Plan for NCDs 2013-2020 to halt the rise in diabetes and obesity and reduce the burden of premature deaths due to NCDs by 25% by 2025.

An Apple has over 20g of sugar. More than half of it fructose.

The vast majority of fructose people consume today comes from honey and sugar, not from fruits.

you would consume it with something fibrous like a sandwich which would slow the rate of digestion

Bread isn't a good source of fiber, you know. In fact, white bread contains almost no fiber.

Quote from: Shifter

The link between sugar and type 2 diabetes is still unclear. It is not confirmed that sugar=diabetes. Do you know something that scientists the world over dont know?

Wow, you have an excellent instinct to listen to nonsense. I haven't heard of anybody claiming sugar can't cause type-2-diabetes. Not even sugar industry does that. The fact that fructose leads to insulin resistance, at least in large amounts, is just indisputable. What sugar industry is claiming is that the effect is negligible in the amounts that's eaten today, that is, that saturated fat, in the amounts that's eaten today, has much more effect. Which may or may not be true (it probably isn't), but that doesn't negate my point.
WHO first subscribed to the view that sugar, in the amounts that's eaten today, is probably harmless. Today, it doesn't:

Quote from: https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/

The sugars guideline is also part of WHO’s effort to reach targets set by the Global Action Plan for NCDs 2013-2020 to halt the rise in diabetes and obesity and reduce the burden of premature deaths due to NCDs by 25% by 2025.

Quote from: Shifter

An Apple has over 20g of sugar. More than half of it fructose.

The vast majority of fructose people consume today comes from honey and sugar, not from fruits.

Quote from: Shifter

you would consume it with something fibrous like a sandwich which would slow the rate of digestion

Bread isn't a good source of fiber, you know. In fact, white bread contains almost no fiber.

Wait up. Honey is eaten in such large amounts the sugar content is way above fruit consumption? What do people scoop out handfuls from the jar? I rarely use honey myself. I put in occasionally a teaspoon into a family porridge that serves 4 people.

I don't eat white bread. Mine is dark and filled with grains/seeds. I hate white bread. It not only makes you more hungry but ever since I worked with diabetic mice I knew just how awful white bread really is. You see, to give a mouse diabetes you'd use something called alloxan. The same shit they bleach flour with to make it pretty and white. That's then used in making white bread. Don't make assumptions about me.

Also I'm from Australia. We don't have that high fructose corn syrup shit America has and even if we did, I'd avoid it like the plague.

You have yet to provide a link between honey and diabetes. Even sugar-> diabetes.

I'll meet you a little bit and say ridiculously excess sugar->obesity->huuuuuuge increased risk in developing type 2 diabetes

Eating in moderation, even shitty refined white sugar, will not cause diabetes. There is of yet no direct link between sugar and type 2 diabetes. I am of a good weight, stay active and do not eat sugary crap. I don't need to worry that the fructose I consume in an apple, banana, berries and occasionally a little honey is going to give me diabetes. Neither should you.

Why when you debate do you need to rely on going to extremes? No one here is advocating eating sugar in ridiculous amounts. Or honey. Eating anything to excess will cause weight gain.

At least honey (raw) is less of a rubbish junk food and has some beneficial nutrients unlike sugar. But no one says to scoff jars of it lol

I will say again. Moderation of what you eat and lifestyle is key to a healthy body. I don't care how good of a vegan diet you have. If you're a couch potato, you're not healthy.

Just quit talking rubbish. Debate on honest merit, not made up bullshit. I mean seriously trying to pass off that a teaspoon of honey on a sandwich is going to cause diabetes because eating shitloads of sugar is bad for you. Sigh. You're a good laugh at least

You see, to give a mouse diabetes you'd use something called alloxan.

Alloxan, if anything, increases the risk of type-1-diabetes, certainly not the type-2-diabetes. And you not understanding that isn't even funny.
And this is what happens when you try to discuss anything scientific with a Flat-Earther, they don't just deny the Earth is round, they deny all of science. Almost all nutritionists agree saturated fat leads to heart disease. But you will find some crank on-line expressing doubt about that and would rather trust them than mainstream science. Almost all nutritionists agree sugar causes type-2-diabetes (at least indirectly, if not directly), but you will find some crank on the Internet doubting that and you will rather trust them than mainstream science. This isn't even funny.

Quote from: Shifter

You see, to give a mouse diabetes you'd use something called alloxan.

Alloxan, if anything, increases the risk of type-1-diabetes, certainly not the type-2-diabetes. And you not understanding that isn't even funny.
And this is what happens when you try to discuss anything scientific with a Flat-Earther, they don't just deny the Earth is round, they deny all of science. Almost all nutritionists agree saturated fat leads to heart disease. But you will find some crank on-line expressing doubt about that and would rather trust them than mainstream science. Almost all nutritionists agree sugar causes type-2-diabetes (at least indirectly, if not directly), but you will find some crank on the Internet doubting that and you will rather trust them than mainstream science. This isn't even funny.

Still no source on why honey causes diabetes. Typical

And I never said alloxan causes 'type 2 diabetes' I simply said diabetes. Don't put extra words in my mouth if you want to appear credible. It does nothing to back you up.

I'm still waiting on your evidence of honey causing type 2 diabetes. Especially when used as intended.

The only crackpot is you

Still no source on why honey causes diabetes. Typical

Honey and sugar cause type-2-diabetes in two ways. First of all, fructose, at least in large amounts, causes liver to become insulin resistant. There is some controversy whether this plays a significant role in the amounts it's consumed today. However, what is, as far as I know, not controversial is that sugar and honey inhibit the production of leptin. Leptin is the hormone that causes one to feel full when they've eaten enough. If leptin isn't working as it should be, well, a person becomes overweight. And being overweight massively increases the risk of type-2-diabetes.

And I never said alloxan causes 'type 2 diabetes' I simply said diabetes.

You said white bread causes diabetes. What people usually mean when they say something causes diabetes is that it causes type-2-diabetes, since type-1-diabetes is generally accepted to be caused solely by genetics.

Again you bullshit what I said to try and galvanise your failing position

I never said 'bread causes diabetes'

I said

to give a mouse diabetes you'd use something called alloxan. The same shit they bleach flour with to make it pretty and white. That's then used in making white bread.

Where does that say 'white bread causes diabetes'

I said it uses an ingredient in processing of the flour used in making white bread and that ingredient causes diabetes (clear cut). Why would I want that used in the process of making my bread in any amount?

Is this ingredient beneficial in any way? Add any nutritional value? No. Just makes the flour look more aesthetically pleasing to some while being toxic as hell.

Every time you post your position gets weaker and weaker. You can't even support the idea of eating in moderation because heaven forbid an apple has fructose and meat (even white) has saturated fat. Bravo. Your body must love being you

Your no advocate for a healthy diet so stop pretending to try. Stop misrepresenting others and start posting sources and references in your so called 'essay' if you want people to take you seriously and not some jackarse on the internet expressing his biased opinion on something

You can't even support the idea of eating in moderation because heaven forbid an apple has fructose and meat (even white) has saturated fat. Bravo. Your body must love being you

I accept mainstream science wherever it happens to lead. You deny mainstream science on the regular for no apparent reason. And, when it becomes obvious your position is indefensible, you claim you've somehow been misunderstood.

Quote from: Shifter

You can't even support the idea of eating in moderation because heaven forbid an apple has fructose and meat (even white) has saturated fat. Bravo. Your body must love being you

I accept mainstream science wherever it happens to lead. You deny mainstream science on the regular for no apparent reason. And, when it becomes obvious your position is indefensible, you claim you've somehow been misunderstood.

That's be as use you deliberately misrepresent what I say when your argument falls apart

You did it again.
Is 'a balanced diet filled with fruits vegetables, meats, grains etc' and healthy lifestyle not part of mainstream science? That is my position and the only one against it in this thread is you claiming veganism is the healthiest way and mankind would have been better served being vegan for the past tens of thousands of years

You know nothing about ketogenic diets and make wild and stupid a claims about it

You also make a whole lot of nonsense up and when you're called for a source you refuse

Unless you actually have something of substance or value to add, I'm jumping off this circle jerk of nonsense. You are pathetic

Is 'a balanced diet filled with fruits vegetables, meats, grains etc' and healthy lifestyle not part of mainstream science?

No, that's soft science at best. Hard science is that sugar causes type-2-diabetes, that saturated fat causes heart disease and that heme iron causes colon cancer. Hard science doesn't recommend any particular diet, that's the job of soft science. Soft science uses the data from the hard science, as well as from social sciences (to predict what people will actually eat when recommended to, for example, avoid saturated fat), to make recommendations.
A science-based nutrition avoids red meat, that's what I am certain. Red meat is practically the only source of heme iron.

You know nothing about ketogenic diets and make wild and stupid a claims about it

What I do know is that the only way of advocating keto diets for general population is to deny that saturated fats are harmful and that ketosis, be it caused by diabetes or by a lack of carbs in the organism, causes kidney stones. Any real keto diet is going to get way above 10% of their energy intake from saturated fats (and WHO recommends it to be below 10% and, if possible, below 5%). And, in order to advocate keto diets for general population, you probably need to spread that unscientific gibberish that starch is to be blamed for many diseases.
In order to advocate keto-diets for people with neurological disorders such as epilepsy, you need to deny that scientific plausibility of a treatment working is the most important criterion in science-based medicine. There is no sane explanation for how they might work, all we have are some very-low-quality studies. Recommending it as the last resort doesn't sound insane (maybe there is time and place for alternative medicine), but recommending it as the first resort or the second resort or the third resort does.
In order to advocate keto diets for some types of cancer, well, that doesn't sound too unbelievable (that some types of cancer cells are significantly worse than normal cells at get energy from ketone bodies), but recommending it is still reckless at best. How do you know that's true for a particular type of cancer that person has? I'd expect the opposite to be true for some type of cancers, after all, some studies show a low-fat diet may be helpful against breast cancer, and there are also a few studies suggesting ketosis makes some types of cancer grow faster.

You also make a whole lot of nonsense up and when you're called for a source you refuse

I provided you with a quote from WHO saying that they believe sugar causes type-2-diabetes, you ignored it. If it's even my responsibility to provide sources for such well-known things.

Hey FlatAssembler stop getting so high and mighty about science.

You belong to a cult and you argue for the sake of arguing. I provided a meta-analysis showing that the claims about red meat causing cancer are bunk and you still stick with that. Your position is not science based but cult based. Only research that fits the cult narrative is accepted. Any view contrary to the cult narrative you will argue with whether it is evidence based or not. I have worked out the genesis about our natural diet causing us cancer. Apparently the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists had a vision that a plant based diet is better and red meat causes cancer. Since SDA have set up many universities and dominated nutrition research not to mention being the first big commercial interest with a dog in the fight to sponsor research due to owning huge companies like Sanitarium and even co-founding the American Academy of Dietetics their dogmas got legs and cloaked in science. However objective investigations into their dogmas lacking the bias of their researchers shows they don't hold water.

"your body derives exactly zero energy from meat"
Most of my meals these day are raw meat. If that were true I would look like a vegan by now due to wasting away from lack of energy. It is not true. Fat is a valid source of energy and protein can be used if needed.

You clearly struggle with understanding the ketogenic diet. You cite the risk of kidney stones but since there is a 95% chance of not getting them based on the research that identified it and it was only found in children I don't know if anyone would lose sleep about that. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17621514/

In any case like Shifter I would advocate a balanced diet filled with fruits vegetables, meats, grains etc' and healthy lifestyle (acknowledging that I don't currently eat what I preach) with the qualifier that if you are going to lean one way or another carnivore is healthier than plant only. Nevertheless as omnivores we can lean either way for a significant time without harm.

Your comments about Australian Aboriginals remind me of your comments about kangaroos. Have you had a chance to google it yet to discover that they have two stomach chambers and they chew their cud?

Unlike honey meat was an integral part of our evolution and gave us our large brain. Unlike honey people all over the world evolved while eating it. Unlike honey it is readily available on a regular basis. How often do you encounter a bee hive in the woods? How could our natural diet be unhealthy?

I provided a meta-analysis showing that the claims about red meat causing cancer are bunk and you still stick with that.

As far as I know, nobody today is disputing that heme iron causes colon cancer. The controversy is more on the lines of whether it's:
a) heme iron->colon cancer
or
b) heme iron + omega-6 fatty acids -> colon cancer
Well, omega-6 fatty acids are pretty much unavoidable, especially on a meat-based diet (eggs contain lots of them), so which one is right doesn't really matter.

there is a 95% chance of not getting them

And, if you eat a normal diet, the chances of not getting kidney stones are 99.something%. Having 5% of chance of getting kidney stones is an acceptable risk to you? How do you figure?