Diet and nutrition

[Big Cox 88]

that lamb looks amazing

It wasn't baaaaad.

 

[Bazzar]

It wasn't baaaaad.

And I doubt there's a single missing nutrient

 

[StiffArm]

So this study you've quoted shows a direct link between decreased fat consumption and decreased testosterone

as does this one

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6298507

then all of these show a direct correlation between elevated HDL and elevated test

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1998648
http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49
http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0014/ea0014p628.htm
http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0013/ea0013p161.htm

starting to see a pattern here

not to mention that cholesterol IS ACTUALLY THE PRECURSOR TO TESTOSTERONE!!!

How you could try and refute the link between cholesterol and testosterone is completely beyond me.

I stated that your study wasn't relevant to your assertion that vegans have lower testosterone because it looked at old men on high fat diets, and what happens to them when you completely change their diet in the short term.
This has nothing to do with whether vegans actually have higher or lower levels of testosterone, for that you need to look at their diets.
This particular study found that among this group, the vegans had 13% higher testosterone levels after adjusting for age and BMI. Obviously it's one study, but I had a look for any data that showed vegans necessarily had lower testosterone and I couldn't find any. Over to you, I'm happy to be enlightened.

 

[StiffArm]

You haven't actually responded to what I said at all:
The issue is, i've not said anything negative about a vegan diet, but I keep getting questioned and attacked as if I am. The issue for the vegans discussing here is that they are too emotionally invested in the topic, it's evidenced here. Anything but a glowing recommendation of veganism breeds hostility. Why are you so emotionally invested? Why is me saying "individual food choices matter more than meat vs non meat" something that needs to be argued against?

You quoted it, but are going on a tangent about the ethical good of veganism. It has zero relationship to my point. It seems you're not actually reading what i'm writing, you're just assuming because i'm not saying "veganism is the way to go" that you need to give me your standard response.

You asked why vegans are so emotionally invested in the topic. I directly answered that.

As far as breeding hostility, I don't think I've been hostile, but I apologize if you've felt victimized.

I'm currently of the opinion that there is more to the discrepancy in health outcomes shown between standard and vegan diets than "individual food choices" which is why I argued towards that point. As far as "anything short of a glowing recommendation", I don't think there has been evidence of that in anything I've written. For the most part I've simply staved off untruths that a vegan diet is inherently inferior.

I will agree that at times I've overreached, and I've enjoyed reading some of the info I've been provided by baz on forks over knives. Always happy to discuss legitimate claims against my positions, and indeed change my positions when I'm shown to be incorrect.

 

[StiffArm]

It's interesting watching someone question every piece of information presented to them, yet keeps referencing cowspiracy, a film that was criticised for huge flaws in it's scientific reasoning.

I've followed a bit of the back and forth regarding flaws in cowspiracy, haven't yet come across something I've found convincing. Got a critique in mind?

 

[DemonTim]

I've followed a bit of the back and forth regarding flaws in cowspiracy, haven't yet come across something I've found convincing. Got a critique in mind?

That their entire claims of how much of an impact it has on the environment was false, and grossly overestimated

 

[DemonTim]

You asked why vegans are so emotionally invested in the topic. I directly answered that.

As far as breeding hostility, I don't think I've been hostile, but I apologize if you've felt victimized.

I'm currently of the opinion that there is more to the discrepancy in health outcomes shown between standard and vegan diets than "individual food choices" which is why I argued towards that point. As far as "anything short of a glowing recommendation", I don't think there has been evidence of that in anything I've written. For the most part I've simply staved off untruths that a vegan diet is inherently inferior.

I will agree that at times I've overreached, and I've enjoyed reading some of the info I've been provided by baz on forks over knives. Always happy to discuss legitimate claims against my positions, and indeed change my positions when I'm shown to be incorrect.

Wait, so you think that there is a bigger discrepancy between vegans/non vegans, than people making an individual food choice.

That is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[StiffArm]

Wait, so you think that there is a bigger discrepancy between vegans/non vegans, than people making an individual food choice.

That is absolutely ludicrous.

Yep, because there are other sentient beings involved.

In a similar vein to how people choosing whether own slaves or not was more than an individual choice a couple of centuries ago. Ethically, where there is sentience, interests should be considered.

You try to paint yourself as the reasonable balanced one, but I'm not seeing it in your language

 

[StiffArm]

That their entire claims of how much of an impact it has on the environment was false, and grossly overestimated

Care to elaborate? Applying simple laws of thermodynamics one would realize that animal agriculture is an order of magnitude less efficient.

 

[DemonTim]

Yep, because there are other sentient beings involved.

In a similar vein to how people choosing whether own slaves or not was more than an individual choice a couple of centuries ago. Ethically, where there is sentience, interests should be considered.

You try to paint yourself as the reasonable balanced one, but I'm not seeing it in your language

Huh? Where in any of my posts have i referenced ethics? I've made it clear i'm discussing it from a nutritional perspective from the start.

Do not misrepresent my views, or the discussion

 

[DemonTim]

Care to elaborate? Applying simple laws of thermodynamics one would realize that animal agriculture is an order of magnitude less efficient.

They specified greenhouse gas emissions at a figure that was around 3-4 times the actual level.

You seem to want to conflate every topic with something else to cloud the issue. It's fairly clear you just dislike people disagreeing with you.

 

[Bazzar]

I stated that your study wasn't relevant to your assertion that vegans have lower testosterone because it looked at old men on high fat diets, and what happens to them when you completely change their diet in the short term.
This has nothing to do with whether vegans actually have higher or lower levels of testosterone, for that you need to look at their diets.
This particular study found that among this group, the vegans had 13% higher testosterone levels after adjusting for age and BMI. Obviously it's one study, but I had a look for any data that showed vegans necessarily had lower testosterone and I couldn't find any. Over to you, I'm happy to be enlightened.

Surprise, surprise the men who were 10 years younger were more healthy.

Is there a similar study where the 42 year old vegans are actually 52 years of age like the meat eaters in this one?

Why weren't the vegans, vegetarians and so called "meat eaters" all similar age?

Also in your opinion, would a 9% lower IGF-I concentration occur naturally in a ten year span from the age of 42 - 52 with males on an ordinary poor quality Australian diet, and also at the same time with males on a healthy diet regardless of the actual template?

Trouble with these studies, the vegans by nature lead a healthy lifestyle, the "high fat" groups usually follow an unhealthy high fat diet largely comprised of industrial oils and not a moderately higher healthy fat diet that is currently popular.

One last thing, the lower plasma total cholesterol concentration was based on a 30 year on "observational" study. Thankfully science has moved on since.

 

[StiffArm]

You asked why vegans are so emotionally invested in the topic. I directly answered that.

(for reference: "To answer your question, many vegans get seemingly disproportionately involved because to them it isn't simply a choice about health. To most vegans it comes down to this. "Can you be as healthy and as fulfilled on a vegan diet as one including meat?" If the answer to that is "yes", then why the **** are we ruining the planet and doing seriously morally questionable things in animal agriculture?)"

Wait, so you think that there is a bigger discrepancy between vegans/non vegans, than people making an individual food choice.

That is absolutely ludicrous.

Yep, because there are other sentient beings involved.

In a similar vein to how people choosing whether own slaves or not was more than an individual choice a couple of centuries ago. Ethically, where there is sentience, interests should be considered.

You try to paint yourself as the reasonable balanced one, but I'm not seeing it in your language

Huh? Where in any of my posts have i referenced ethics? I've made it clear i'm discussing it from a nutritional perspective from the start.

Do not misrepresent my views, or the discussion

At this point, I'll ask you if you're actually reading my points. No, you didn't raise ethics, but I HAD when answering your question. Do you actually want a conversation or are you more interested in playing funny buggers with word games?

They specified greenhouse gas emissions at a figure that was around 3-4 times the actual level.

You seem to want to conflate every topic with something else to cloud the issue. It's fairly clear you just dislike people disagreeing with you.

The 51% figure was just as scientifically valid as the 18% number given in a seperate figure. Different assumptions as described here in a reasonably balanced way.
One of the biggest changes to those numbers is the timeline assumed for Methane. There is no good reason to take it over 100 years as opposed to 20 years, and it makes a significant difference to calculations.

 

[DemonTim]

At this point, I'll ask you if you're actually reading my points. No, you didn't raise ethics, but I HAD when answering your question. Do you actually want a conversation or are you more interested in playing funny buggers with word games?




The 51% figure was just as scientifically valid as the 18% number given in a seperate figure. Different assumptions as described here in a reasonably balanced way.
One of the biggest changes to those numbers is the timeline assumed for Methane. There is no good reason to take it over 100 years as opposed to 20 years, and it makes a significant difference to calculations.

So you mentioned ethics, after my original point was made (which i've made numerous times now) and are now relating ethics to my point retrospectively?

I'm trying to have a discussion, about diet and nutrition, and how individual choices matters more to DIET and NUTRITION, than vegan vs meat. I gave an anecdotal piece to show that both sides can make poor choices, and those poor individual choices are what matter. I've stated this numerous times now, and my questioning of emotion, came from the responses to me saying that.

Please don't link Quora as a source of truth.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

You do realise Methane is not just related to meat eaters, yes? Fossil fuels still make up more of an impact on methane than anything...

So we've got a scientific consensus on the figures vs. cowspiracy and quora, hmmmm tough one

 

[DemonTim]

I didn't realise i'd have to spend so much time, explaining that i'm talking about diet and nutrition and not ethics, in a thread about diet and nutrition, on a health and fitness sub forum, where i specifically made mention of diet and nutrition

**** me, and I get accused of playing word games.

 

[StiffArm]

So you mentioned ethics, after my original point was made (which i've made numerous times now) and are now relating ethics to my point retrospectively?

Yep, you asked why vegans were so involved. Multiple times. So I answered you. there was no retrospectivity, you'll find that quote in the earlier post.

I'm trying to have a discussion, about diet and nutrition, and how individual choices matters more to DIET and NUTRITION, than vegan vs meat. I gave an anecdotal piece to show that both sides can make poor choices, and those poor individual choices are what matter. I've stated this numerous times now, and my questioning of emotion, came from the responses to me saying that.

You can't seem to get past this. If you felt you were treated unfairly, my sincere apologies, and harden the **** up. On a PURELY nutritional aspect, with you that both a vegan and a non vegan diet can be both healthy and unhealthy. I never questioned your anecdote, I reacted to what I perhaps incorrectly perceived to be an anecdote based attack. It was nestled in among a bunch of actual attacks being leveled my way at the time and I didn't differentiate your pearls of wisdom.

Please don't link Quora as a source of truth.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

You do realise Methane is not just related to meat eaters, yes? Fossil fuels still make up more of an impact on methane than anything...

So we've got a scientific consensus on the figures vs. cowspiracy and quora, hmmmm tough one

Now you're just being a dick for the sake of it. You want me to go finding primary sources when you give a vague "3-4 times" and decide the entire movie is debunked because of that? I've read a bunch of analyses about those numbers. The 18% figure has problems too.

 

[Bazzar]

I didn't realise i'd have to spend so much time, explaining that i'm talking about diet and nutrition and not ethics, in a thread about diet and nutrition, on a health and fitness sub forum, where i specifically made mention of diet and nutrition

**** me, and I get accused of playing word games.

It's impossible to discuss nutrition with a vegan and not go down the ethics path. Ethics is what the movement is based on, then the cherry picking follows to justify the heath benefits.

 

[Big Cox 88]

We should just meat in the middle and agree both diets have their advantages and disadvantages and live with the ethos of each to their own rather than this petty infighting. The fact we are discussing this shows that we care about our health and would like a change in the recommendations made by government organisations (crappy star rating system which followed the crappy healthy heart tick).

 

[DemonTim]

Yep, you asked why vegans were so involved. Multiple times. So I answered you. there was no retrospectivity, you'll find that quote in the earlier post.



You can't seem to get past this. If you felt you were treated unfairly, my sincere apologies, and harden the **** up. On a PURELY nutritional aspect, with you that both a vegan and a non vegan diet can be both healthy and unhealthy. I never questioned your anecdote, I reacted to what I perhaps incorrectly perceived to be an anecdote based attack. It was nestled in among a bunch of actual attacks being leveled my way at the time and I didn't differentiate your pearls of wisdom.



Now you're just being a dick for the sake of it. You want me to go finding primary sources when you give a vague "3-4 times" and decide the entire movie is debunked because of that? I've read a bunch of analyses about those numbers. The 18% figure has problems too.

I asked why theyre so emotionally involved. The second para has just shown my point. I made a post making a point that was not in any way an attack, and you assumed it was an attack

Don't put words in my mouth, i'm pointing out why what you're saying has no relevance to what i'm discussing, i've never said i'm being treated unfairly. Me saying that your posts are irrelevant/incorrect in no way leads to the conclusion that I want an apology, or that i'm upset about anything.

The 3-4 times was because it's between three and four and I couldnt be bothered writing 3.333333333333333 times

You came up with the 18% figure, not me by the way.

So you say 18% has problems TOO, if you agree that both numbers have problems, why would you use either? What made you go with the 51% as the most correct, if both have problems? Do the problems not concern you about the information

 

[DemonTim]

We should just meat in the middle and agree both diets have their advantages and disadvantages and live with the ethos of each to their own rather than this petty infighting. The fact we are discussing this shows that we care about our health and would like a change in the recommendations made by government organisations (crappy star rating system which followed the crappy healthy heart tick).

That was my basic initial point. I then went on a tangent when I got responded to as if I was attacking vegans.

 

[Bazzar]

We should just meat in the middle and agree both diets have their advantages and disadvantages and live with the ethos of each to their own rather than this petty infighting. The fact we are discussing this shows that we care about our health and would like a change in the recommendations made by government organisations (crappy star rating system which followed the crappy healthy heart tick).

That's why I like vegetarians, they get it.

 

[WakeUpPies]

Has anyone on both sides changed their minds regarding vegan diets due to this 2-week back and forth?

Let's move on shall we

 

[Not Important]

It's impossible to discuss nutrition with a vegan and not go down the ethics path. Ethics is what the movement is based on, then the cherry picking follows to justify the heath benefits.

ethics plays a part in the food choices of many people.

not just vegans.

 

[DemonTim]

ethics plays a part in the food choices of many people.

not just vegans.

It has little to do with this topic or board though.

 

[showdownhero]

We should just meat in the middle and agree both diets have their advantages and disadvantages and live with the ethos of each to their own rather than this petty infighting. The fact we are discussing this shows that we care about our health and would like a change in the recommendations made by government organisations (crappy star rating system which followed the crappy healthy heart tick).