PART 2/3


That is an interesting scenario to ponder upon! As it stands at the moment, I would let the lion kill the zebra, because separating them would kill the lion (due to lack of food). I'm not sure about lab-grown meat and so on in the lion example, because lions also have inherent carnivorous instincts to hunt and prey. Would the suppression of this inherent hunting instinct lead to suffering for lions? Is lab-grown meat healthy for lions? Would this upset the balance of ecosystem such that the ecosystem collapses, in turn leading to a greater degree of casualties?
There are are too many unknowns here and therefore, I'd focus on my personal choices and their consequences for now.
Before we can intervene to create happy lives for animals, we must first take responsibility to lessen the suffering that is resulting from our own actions and their consequences in the here and now.


Yes that is true. I agree that some suffering is a natural part of life. I like your food for thoughts - they're fun


Yes, my main reasons (in order of significance) are:
1) To end the suffering of animals
2) To end the killing of animals
3) To cultivate empathy, because I believe "peace begins on our plate." If I and others can be empathic towards animals, then we can learn to become empathic towards each other and stop the conflicts, wars, greed, and other major issues that we're facing
4) To create a positive impact on environment
5) Personal health and wellness


I see - thanks for sharing that Dreamer. Could I ask what exactly was the discrepancy in the old and new information? What was the misinformation and how is that different from reality as you now perceive it?


What nutrients do you think are difficult to acquire? I'm interested because my experience and that of many others I know has been very different. I feel amazing in my body and I know I'm getting adequate nutrients with little to no effort. I have more energy, higher stamina, quick muscle recovery (from working out), I don't get constipated and I don't get sick. This experience is also backed by science.


How is it derailing the topic? And what makes it a "loaded question"? I see strong parallels here. If you don't see the parallels, then please explain why not.


The difference between necessary killing and unnecessary killing is a simple one. In my view, killing is necessary (and can be justified) if one needs to kill for survival or self-defense. It is unnecessary otherwise.
I never claimed to be an arbitrator of those decisions. I only started a discussion and asked for people's own views. If I want to better understand someone's perspective or get to the root of the argument, then I pose questions - and I expect that people will either back up their views or change in light of new information. That is the kind of conversation that results in mutual growth, and it is with that in mind that I asked you the questions.



Why do you point me to this page? My apologies if I've offended you. It wasn't my intention.

Here are my sources for the above-stated claim:

Scarborough, Peter, et al. "Dietary greenhouse-gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK". Climactic Change. July 2014. Volume 125. Issue 2. pp. 179-192


Pimentel, David & Pimental, Marcia. "Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. September 2003. vol 78. no 3 660S-663S


"The carbon foodprint of five diets compared". Shrink That Footprint


"Facts on Animal Farming and the Environment". One Green Planet.


"Our Future Our Food. Making a Difference With Every Bite: The Power of the Fork!". Earth Save International


Ranganathan, Janet & Waite, Richard. "Sustainable Diets: What You Need to Know in 12 Charts". World Resources Institute. April 2016



I've cited sources above in response to Jagube.


I agree morality is relative. I also agree that one shouldn't push their own sense of morality onto others. That's something that people should have complete freedom to decide. It's just important to know our actions and their consequences so that we can make decisions that are more in alignment with our core values (even if those core values are subjective and relative).


And that is okay - I see that you're still choosing the option that is in your view causing the least harm. I respect that mindset.


The question was geared towards a pet dog that one owns, rather than a dog that is a stranger.


I've read the source you have cited. Here's a quote from your source:

The above information is cited on the EPA website based on this research. And according to this research (I quote directly from the main source of information):

Your own source is in favor of my claim. And here are some more different sources pointing to the same data:

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009


Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009


Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015.



The study you have cited (in the two links) doesn't compare a vegan diet to a non-vegan diet and therefore is not relevant to our discussion. Instead, it only assess the level of caloric intake (in the 3 different scenarios of diets) as per USDA recommendations.
Please read this paper written in response to this very research you have cited - you will find it insightful and see that the title is only for sensational marketing. In fact, the study you cited doesn't contradict my statement at all, because the purpose of the study was not to find out the total carbon footprint of a vegan vs. non-vegan diet.
I quote from the source I cited above:


Hope that puts it into perspective.


You've provided a link that only mentions general guidelines about water use in regards to animal agriculture, but I'll go ahead provide actual research studies that prove my above-stated claim:

Beckett, J. L, Oltjen, J. W "Estimation of the Water Requirement for Beef Production in the United States". Journal of Animal Science. 1993. 71:818-826


Pimentel, David, et al. "Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues". BioScience (2004) 54 (10): 909-918.


"Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison". Water Footprint Network.



The article that you've cited from Scientific American is based on a TED talk by Allan Savory. Please read this source to see why it is completely wrong. It is a very well-cited article.

I quote from the source I linked above:




But irrigation is part of animal agriculture. The source you've provided here mentions only "Livestock," not "Animal Agriculture." This article does not even define what is meant by livestock. Based on the other research into this subject, I'd conclude that by "livestock," this article only takes into consideration the amount of water directly drank by animals. I'd say that it fails to account for the water that is used for growing feed for livestock (such as irrigation).

Here are some sources that support my above-stated claim that meat and dairy industries use 1/3 of Earth's fresh water:

Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Hoekstra, Arjen Y. "A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products". Ecosystems (2012) 15: 401-415


Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. et al. "The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparitive study in different countries and production systems". Water Resources and Industry. Vol. 1-2, March-June 2013, Pages 25-36


Herrero, Mario, et al. "Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. vol. 110 no. 52



Yes I agree that majority of crops are processed and fed to livestock. I don't think that the idea of the entire world going vegan is delusional. It may or may not happen, but I think it is important to "be the change we want to see in the world." Change of this kind will happen at a grassroots level.


I've addressed every source that you have cited thus far. Based on the quality and quantity of research I have provided, the original statement I made still stands - unless you see a problem in any of my cited sources, in which case, please address them.


That's an interesting point Dreamer, and you got me questioning my original statement. It led me to research this subject further and I came across this study on the production and costs of grass-fed beef vs. grain-fed beef.

I quote from this study:


Here are 2 more sources that are very well-cited:
1, 2.


Dreamer, I agree with you that the NY Times article doesn't provide a reference for the specific fact that grass-grazing cows emit more methane than grain-fed cows. And it was a poor choice on my behalf to cite that article. Having that said, your own source that you linked from National Trust backs up my claim. I quote your cited source:




It's eye-opening to see where our food comes from and how it was produced. I want to say that even though we're debating here, I know you are a mindful individual, eating mostly plant-based and locally grown food and I respect that.


That is very true. Amen to that brother


Hi Chan, I think your continuum model has validity and indeed many people I know have progressed in steps - not overnight.


I can understand why you think that my approach deviates from your continuum scale. In a way it does and in a way it doesn't. Allow me to explain.

I see every minor step of progression towards veganism as a good thing. In fact I encourage it and fully support such a continuum of progress and development. Simultaneously however, I cannot compromise the clear end goal, which is a complete end to all animal exploitation.

Many vegan organizations at the moment are promoting a "reducetarian" approach. In this reducetarian approach, reducing the amount meat and dairy consumption is the end goal. I myself don't promote such reducetarian approach because to promote it would be to say that some animal exploitation is in fact okay. This in turn would still keep the notion of speciesism alive and thus be counter-productive.

This is why campaigns like "Meatless Mondays" are ineffective. Think of it like this - if someone is physically abusing his partner in a relationship, would we promote "Abuseless Mondays"? Or would we call for a clear end goal of complete abolition to all physical violence?


Yes this is true Jagube, but only in the short-term. I've been reading literature on clinical psychology and behavioral change therapy (in regards to domestic violence, alcoholism and drug abuse) and research shows that for long-term behavioral change, a reducetarian approach (that I mentioned above) doesn't work. However, it's productive to progress in baby steps as long as a clear end goal is established.

PART 3/3


I respect your decision to be mindful enough to question the consequences of your actions. Though we may differ in the actions we take and in our relative definitions of morality, I think we share in common the notion of causing the least amount of harm.


Hi RAM! Yes I admit that eating artificially synthesized foods (if possible one day) would eliminate ethical concerns of eating any living being. I'm cool with that as long as health isn't compromised. It would be a difficult endeavor for humans to match nature in it's hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Thus, for now we can just work on what is in our control here and now.


Ok I see RAM - your explanation of my question makes John Rawls' approach more clearer to me. I agree that seeing the situation from the perspective of the most disadvantaged individual/group is the same as seeing the situation from the victim's point of view (in regards to social justice).


Your explanation of this question however doesn't fit. Here's why - I'm only willing to be raped by hot women, therefore I am justified in raping hot women. This is parallel to your example of Kobe beef. You are willing to accept the fate of Kobe beef, therefore you are justified in eating Kobe beef.
If you were to now say that I have to be willing to be raped by any random stranger, then I would say that you would have to be willing to accept the fate of any random cow in any slaughterhouse.
You see the parallel here?


I'm happy that this has got you and your roommates thinking about this issue. I admire such self-reflection, and I also admire your decision to give veganism a try sometime


That's great RAM. If you download the Happy Cow app, you can find all the vegan restaurants in your area on a map - it's a super cool app.
If poor people really can't afford vegan options, then that would mean that other food alternatives don't really exist for them, in which case (as I stated earlier) it is justified (in my subjective opinion) to eat meat/dairy. However, I found that I now spend less money on vegan food than what I was spending when I was still eating meat/dairy. Thank you for an amazing discussion. It has been a pleasure



Indeed dragonrider. I also find such arguments silly. Animals form complex social structures, communicate in their own language, and feel fear, pain and pleasure at physical, emotional and psychological levels. There is a hell that exists on Earth - they're factory farms & slaughterhouses. It's traumatic to even watch videos of some of the things we're doing to these innocent animals - let alone be in their skins.


I find this to be an community full of intellectual individuals and that is why it has been a great discussion. People are respectful and academic in their responses. I've grown from this discussion and learned about some new things I hadn't considered or known before. Thank you everyone for that!


I agree. And indeed, exceptions do exist, but they are rare and unrepresentative of our day-to-day living in our modern world.


Completely agreed with everything here.


I also lied to myself - for so long. As mentioned earlier, I'd also get in arguments with vegan people when I was still non-vegan. It's silly for me to now reflect back upon the justifications I used just because I liked the taste and convenience of meat/dairy.


Hehe indeed we are a part of each other, even when we eat each other


Thank you for sharing that!

'Reduction' can be a continuous process which ultimately reduces quantity X to zero. And in doing so, transforms Situation A into Situation B.

History tells us, frequently and repeatedly, that merely banning Situation A, and imposing Situation B, never works.

And I'm puzzled why you would not promote something that leads to fewer animals being consumed overall? You actually want more animals consumed overall, then? Because aside from zero (which is not a valid solution, on a planet with complex ecowebs and apex predators) that is the only remaining position available to you, if you choose to reject 'reducetarianism'.

In the great list of -isms to which the human race is still prey, speciesism, deplorable as it is, is still a higher-order problem than say, racism, sexism and nepotism. So it is arguably futile to focus exclusively on that, well before the 'easier' (!) problems have even been addressed. I'm with you 100% on the evils of industrial livestock rearing/slaughtering, but this is a problem created by capital, profit and regulatory capture, and trying to fight those with ethics, is like shooting peas at an aircraft carrier. NB. The same lot of interests will be absolutely delighted to sell you some synthetic crap to chow on too, so be careful what you wish for. And fight the power as it really is, and not as you wish it to be...

Absolutely mate! This is the correct approach in my opinion that is also supported by research into behavioral change therapy and clinical psychology.

Reducetarian approach is different in that a clear end goal is not defined and the action of reducing consumption itself becomes the end-goal. But what you've stated here, regarding reducing quantity from "X to zero" is effective as per the current data available on the subject.


Yes, I agree. I'm also not in favor of forcing people to change their views and imposing upon their beliefs. I completely agree with you in this regard. I only think that it is important to inform people of their choices so that they are fully aware of what they're choosing and the consequences of their actions (regardless of the choice that they make).


Of course I'm in support of promoting whatever leads to the least amount of animals being exploited.

Allow me to elaborate on clinical research into the field of behavioral change (References are numbered in the text below and full citations are cited at the end of this post).

A wealth of research in the field of motivation shows the importance of long-term goal setting (Source: 1). Note that goals don't need to be easy to attain in the short-term for long-term behavioral change. In fact, the underlying premise of the widely studied “Goal-setting Theory” is that specific and difficult goals lead to greater behavioral change (Sources: 2, 3). This body of evidence shows that when we simply ask others to “do their best,” this leads to less behavioral change. The reason for this is that it is difficult for one to engage in self-evaluation of their own change without a clear goal (Sources: 4, 5).

In fact, one of the first things that any clinical psychologist discusses with a new client during the first visit is long-term goal setting. For example, when working with violent clients, clinicians promote the end goal of being and remaining completely non-violent. A therapist would never set a long-term goal of ending only some violence, or ending only physical but not psychological violence. Once the primary long-term goal is stated, the client is then encouraged to come up with ways to achieve that long-term goal, such as better communication and tools and strategies for handling anger-provoking situations more effectively.

Reducing consumption of animal products is a step in the right direction so long that this reduction is part of an effort to end all exploitation.


Yes mate we are both on the same page that speciesism is a higher-order problem. However, there is no research that says lower-order problems must first be solved in order to solve higher-order problems. In fact, as I cited above, "goals don't need to be easy to attain in the short-term for long-term behavioral change." Lower-order problems have always existed, even during times of slavery and holocaust; yet abolition of exploitation did take place.

References:
1. Mitchell, T., & Daniels, D. (2003). “Motivation” in W. Borman, D. Ilgen, J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology: Industrial Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, 225–254). New York, NY: Wiley.
2. Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey.” American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
4. Kanfer, R. (1990). “Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology” in M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., vol. 1, 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
5. Locke, E. A Theory of Goal Setting.

OK, that's quite a lot of psychology research you've digested there.



Maybe not, but you're unlikely to ever reach Alpha-Centauri if you haven't first figured out how to reach the moon. Or split the atom, if you haven't mastered breaking rocks. Whatever goals you may have in place. And goal-setting is only one method in a crowded field of motivational theories. But I'd love to see some meta-analyses, showing outcomes overall.

But that's before we get on to the 'replication crisis,' which has disproportionately affected clinical psychological research, among others:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih...pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Thanks. I'll pass for now, but I'll be keeping a keen eye out for rapid, far-reaching developments in this vitally-important area.

Peace.

Although Kobe beef cows are a class of cows just as women are a class of human beings, there is confusion here. You have to think about it from their perspective by imagining you were that person/cow. So for the rape example, you have to put yourself in the victim's shoes to be morally justified in doing it yourself. If you were in the woman's shoes, it would be rape by a random stranger. If you were a Kobe beef cow, you would live a life of luxury before being eaten. Obviously no one would want to be raped by a random stranger, so rape is impermissible. But, assuming one had to be a cow, living a life of luxury would be highly preferred to living a normal or terrible life.

Despite this, I think one could make a good argument that it might be better to not be born an animal at all. The moral permissibility of eating "humane" meat above hinges on the assumption that you have to be a cow. But it is very clear that we would all rather be humans than animals, as being human allows us to explore the higher, and thus more worthwhile, pleasures (according to John Stuart Mill and his higher and lower pleasures).

With this, I want to give an update on how our vegan journey is going. A little over two weeks ago we all decided to give veganism a try for the ethical reasons listed in this thread. We have done solely vegan shopping trips since then and have only really eaten at vegan restaurants. And it's great!! I feel great and like I have a little bit more energy. Frankly, it is also nice knowing that I am not complicit in the suffering of animals, which is probably the largest benefit. I also feel a heightened level of sensitivity to the world around me, which is both good and bad (I appreciate the sounds of nature a bit more but also am much more sensitive to the exhaust smells on my street).

I make exceptions for my fish oil that I consume every morning for my health and for family/friend events where veganism is not really possible or appropriate. I compare the family/friend exception to slavery: if all of your family and friends had slaves but you still wanted to interact with them, you would just have to deal with their slaves serving you when you visit their homes/parties. Also, if nonvegan food is going to waste anyway, we are willing to eat it as the animals have already died or been exploited, just as everyone in America reaps the economic benefits of being in one of the wealthiest countries (which resulted partly from slavery and other unethical measures).

Besides these exceptions, I think we are all going to stay vegan for the long-haul, all due to this thread! I can't see myself really going back... And you were right Phantastica, I am saving money as well. While my grocery bill is higher, my restaurant bills are far fewer and lower than they were before.

I think your approach makes perfect sense.

Regarding the fish oil, yes, fish contains Omega-3s which you need and are healthy, but also contains pollutants, which might be detrimental to your health.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12205/full

"On the one hand, fish contain docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), long-chain omega-3 fatty acids which have been considered beneficial for human health. Consistent with this concept, a meta-analysis showed moderate, inverse associations of fish consumption with cerebrovascular risk. On the other hand, fish may contain various substances such as persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesticides, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers and heavy metals, including methylmercury, lead, and cadmium, that can negatively affect human health. Consistent with this point, circulating POPs predicted incident stroke in an elderly cohort in Uppsala, Sweden."

There is a pollutant-free source of these Omega-3s DHA and EPA in algae-based supplements, so you can get the best of both worlds (the Omega-3s but without the pollutants), and they are also vegan.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24261532

I will look into these and likely switch over, thank you for the information!

Hi Chan Yes, true that we need to reach the moon before reaching Alpha-Centauri. However, unlike in your example, we already have the means and "technology" to change our actions. The ability already exists. Looking to past examples of social justice issues like slavery, sexism and anti-semitism are more representative examples (for the topic at hand) than flying to Alpha-Centuari.


Becoming a professional clinical psychologist takes 10 years, much like becoming a medical doctor. It's not an endeavor to be taken lightly (nor is it based on dubious research), and we can be sure that it is based on the best research available on the subject.

Also, the research you cited contradicts itself. If we are to agree that most published research is false, then by that logic, the research you cited is in all likelihood also false.


Hi RAM Yes, this is also a good point. Here's what's paradoxical about "humane" treatment: "The movement to treat farm animals better is based on the idea that it is wrong to subject them to unnecessary harm; yet, killing animals we have no need to eat, constitutes the ultimate act of unnecessary harm." Moreover, the more humanely we treat an animal, the greater is the bond of trust between human and animal - and the greater the trust, the more severe is the act of betrayal (when we slaughter the animal).


It makes so happy to hear this RAM!!! I felt exactly the same way when I became vegan - more energy, faster muscle recovery after workouts, a sense of health & wellbeing and lesser spending on food. The largest benefit for me too was the knowing that I was no longer contributing to the exploitation of animals and I also felt this heightened level of sensitivity and empathy towards the world around me. I understand what you mean. This is why I believe that "peace starts on our plate."


Regarding fish oils, you will find this very useful. Flaxseeds are the best source of short-chain Omega 3 ALA (which is turned into long-chain Omega 3's, EPA and DHA). As per this source, taking algae-derived EPA and DHA however does have benefits.

I also understand your dilemma in social situations where others may be consuming animal products - I've experienced similar things. But I'm sure you'll spark thought-provoking discussions with them and have them join you in no time


Yay!!! I've found that joining some facebook groups that share moral support and yummy recipes can be helpful And I'm glad that your total food bill is lower than before. I'm sure you're also saving money in the future by saving on medical costs.

If you're interested in exploring this subject further, I would recommend these resources:
1) Social Justice Dimension (documentaries): Earthlings (2005) and Land of Hope and Glory (2017)
2) Health Dimension (research compilation video): The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, & Reversing Our Top 15 Killers (2016)
3) Environmental Dimension (documentary): Cowspiracy (2014) (Available on Netflix).

Also, let me know if I can be of any help <3


That is spot on mate! Indeed, algae-based supplements are healthier

Here's a snippet to add to this rather wonderful thread:
https://theconversation....ows-it-is-possible-84868

First, an important UPDATE: Further research has shown me that the following claim I made before in this thread was partially misinformed:

As per this compilation of research studies, there is no conclusive research showing that plant-sources (including mushrooms/seaweed) of Vitamin B12 are bioactive in humans. Though B12 analogues can exist in plants, we do not yet know whether they are reliable sources of bioactive B12 for humans.
Therefore, it turns out that I only get my reliable sources of B12 from fortified foods (such as fortified plant milks, nutritional yeast, marmite) and B12 supplements. B12 Supplements are my primary source of B12 now. Please note however that B12 is not produced by animals either.
"B12 is a waste product of bacteria that can be found in soil and inside your body, namely your mucosa, bacteria in the mouth, around the teeth, in the nasopharynx, around the tonsils and in the tonsilar crypts, in the folds at the base of the tongue, and in the upper bronchial tree, and intestine. Animal products will contain traces of B12 because animals eat plants from the ground. Although, with the crap we feed our livestock animals, farmers today actually inject their livestock with B12 in order to be able to say their animal products contain B12! Vegans can simply take the supplements ourselves rather than filtering them through a supplemented animal's body."



Thanks for sharing this! In fact, many professional athletes are choosing a vegan diet particularly to improve their stamina and up their game. To add to the list from your link, here are some athletes I like:
Fiona Oaks: Ultra-marathoner
David Carter: 300 pound NFL Defense Lineman
Patrik Baboumian: Germany's strongman with several world records
Scott Jurek: Best ultra-marathoner
Jake Shields: MMA/UFC fighter
Hillary Biscay: Triathlete
Tim Schieff: Best Parkour artist imo
and the list goes on...

I think everyone should be open to a mostly vegan diet, this doesn't mean you don't have to stop eating animal products, but try reduce your consumption.

I eat vegan 98% of the time and might have a little meat when I go out sometimes. (I started out pure vegan but had an enlightening moment)

I do it for ethical and health reasons.

I don't have a problem with meat production itself but rather how the majority of it is done like factory farming and abuse of animals. People are always going to eat meat, there is nothing I can do to stop that so instead I would rather hope to get more people to understand what is going on with their food.


Funnily enough I just had bloodwork done and got the results today, my Active B12 level was '49' with a reference of 23-100 (I think this means, lower or higher than this is not good), which is apparently a normal level. My Iron was '19' with a reference of 5-30, apparently also a normal reading

I drink soy milk fortified with B12, and really don't drink it much... Even the doctor was confused how I had B12 because I can't remember the last time I ate an egg... Apparently B12 can build up and store in your system for a long time?

I have been 'vegan' for almost two years now and I think it was for the better.

Some NBA stars seem to agree with the health argument:

http://bleacherreport.co...wering-kyrie-and-the-nba

"Funnily enough I just had bloodwork done and got the results today, my Active B12 level was '49' with a reference of 23-100 (I think this means, lower or higher than this is not good), which is apparently a normal level. My Iron was '19' with a reference of 5-30, apparently also a normal reading:are

B12 tests are misleading without a folate test, which is often not done. This alone often masks a b12 deficiency.

You supplement..so your experience is tainted.

1. Cholesterol is made largely by the liver and dietary cholesterol plays a far lower role role than the fats the liver needs to make cholesterol. It is argued, that high dietary cholesterol merely downregulates cholesterol production in the liver.



https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/eggs/



https://www.health.harva...s-risky-for-heart-health

Not to forget Vitamin K2 which is rare in our western diets.

I believe that eggs are super healthy but even more conservative sources such as harvard medical seem to underscore the fact that eggs are not to be demonized.

2. As foor the infographic...

a) There is a difference to me between slaughtering one super intelligent animal (pig) or 10 baby chicken. The pig is worth more.

b) Eggs can be produced without slaughtering and it is in the responsibility of egg producers to make that happen. Blood is on their hands. The consumer does not have a choice.



I personally think that veganism might be possible short term, but the discipline and supplementation required to live this lifestyle longterm is enormous. If you are a vegan, i hope you also weave your own clothes (sweatshops) do not drive a car (pollution kills a ton of people even) do not pay tax (taxes help the gov. fund wars and kill people) and so forth.

There has to be balance between living ethically and functioning in our culture. You have to draw a line somewhere. Ask yourself: What do i really NEED? You do not need meat, but living as a vegan in some parts of the world is just IMPOSSIBLE.

Good luck with that super-low-cruelty, 100% grain diet

(There was genuinely a case of a boy who lived off jam sandwiches, but it seems he was being super ethical. I mean, at least if he didn't butter the bread.)


From the meta analysis:

an interesting book n the subject of meat.

Francesco Buscemi
From Body Fuel to Universal Poison
Cultural History of Meat: 1900-The Present

https://vk.com/doc781663...mp;dl=621888ef67d2806eb4

This thread has actually inspired me to cut down on animal products quite significantly. When approached in a balanced way, this is better for the health.

PS - thanks for the link

Gut bacteria play critical role in anti-seizure effects of ketogenic diet, UCLA scientists report | UCLA

http://newsroom.ucla.edu...t-ucla-scientists-report


A reply from a reddit comment:

"I took a Master's level course on this recently and will try to keep it simple.

Probiotics, prebiotics, and dietary interventions can all help, however a reversion back to the mean is usually experienced after the intervention ends. This probably due to people going back to consuming the same diet they used to. So the way you beneficially change your gut microbiota is by making permanent adjustments to your diet.

Despite being populated by countless microbes, there are online a few "population combinations" that are common. I won't go through the details of all of them, but one of those populations is defined by the phylum Bacteroides and is commonly found in those that consume a lot of animal fats and proteins.

I didn't go through the paper but from the article it seems that they linked the positive effects to Akkermansia and the Bacteroides phylum. Bacteroides is commonly found in those that eat a lot of meat, and Akkermansia has been shown to increase with higher fibre intake.

From this article it looks like ketogenic diets also improve Akkermansia populations, however it could simply be due to the low carb, high fibre vegetables people consume when doing keto. Although the benefits of having Bacteroides and Akkermansia in the gut have long been associated with good body composition, think this is the first time they were linked with seizure reductions.

Tl;dr if you want a similar gut profile as that in the study you need to make permanent adjustments to your diet where you get plenty of meat and fibre."


I totally understand teh ethics part - if we accept the philosophical part of animals actually existing and feeling. Still should we cut down on our health because of it?


Is there a clear picture of what is a healthy diet at the moment?

I'm skeptical of the keto diet, not necessarily for or against, but it seems to lack research, at least more than I would like. Vegan diets have a lot more research and the longest living populations on our planet eat plant-based diets.

It is the only diet shown to effectively halt, and reverse cardiovascular disease, the biggest killer in the Western world. That is aside from the numerous other health benefits people get from the diet.

One trend I have noticed with people going for keto, paleo, etc type diets is that people go from a highly processed diet to eating an obviously much healthier diet with whole foods and moar veggies so it's no suprise we see people's health improving.