Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
This has widely been acknowledged as "generally true." But... that "vegan" died thing has a wide variety of commonly accepted definitions.
Something to note that's equally, if not more important:
What that means is that a full vegan diet may not be necessary to achieve very desirable results - Lowering one's meat consumption can have good benefits, especially over the long-term. That may be more desirable for some and likely would reduce the need for dietary supplements.
"Strict" veganism is not necessary to achieve desirable results.
It is a straw man argument: no one is taking away the "right" to eat dead animals, or even discussing it.
But by the same logic, people should be able to choose what enters their bodies, like recreational drugs.
One plant, in particular, is less harmful to oneself, others, and the environment than animal flesh, but it is prohibited in most countries...
-wasn't attacking, just refuting nonsense.
-if you don't want anyone to reply to you, don't post on a public forum, snowflake.
-try to come up with actual points/arguments instead of ad homs
Thanks.
This.
It is better for literally *everyone*, specially on the environment, if everyone reduced the intake of animal protein (and fat!!!) than a few thousand more vegans.
Also, I asked to not reply me, and you took that as an invitation. You clearly don't understand boundaries or consent.
You call other people "social outcast" for no reason, but you are displaying very antisocial behaviour.
Welcome to my block list.
If you look at meta-analyses of these studies, it quite clearly points to the two main factors being a high intake of fibre and a low intake of saturated fats.
When it comes to general nutritional health, whether or not you consume animal products is more or less irrelevant. Fibre and saturated fats are what matter. You also have to consider that, on average, vegans are much more health conscious. The average omnivore puts little thought into what they're consuming.
Source: I'm a pathologist working in food safety. I study this kind of stuff for a living.
You're literally out here calling meat eaters murderers, lol, as well as spreading nonsense about taste, obviously I'm going to respond.
I don't care if some random snowflake blocks me, your choice, I suppose. Enjoy your circle-jerking echo chamber.
Can't come up with a counter-argument so you block, weak coward. LOL!
Just as an aside - That's a definite "maybe." It's very difficult to quantify in terms of practicality, despite reports and studies about methane and yield/area of protein/food. It would need to be part of a much larger effort that... kinda might not be "doable" right now. Should it be shifted towards? Yes. But, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, and transporting the crops needed to replace those calories would have an impact as well. Replacing animals where they are with suitable crops might not be possible, so then you have to transport crops or genetically engineer suitable crops to grow there in enough abundance to fill the need. (eg: That is being done in some places. IIRC, India is doing that with some GMO'd corn.)
ie: Yes, but then there's the really difficult bits to consider. :)
Meaning, only the rich people can truly afford such a diet..
I'm quite sure those packaged noodles you buy are infinitely worse for you than meat. Still buy 'em.
I'll eat what tastes good. How it goes.
I see this confusion about price all the time... not sure where it comes from... but, 2 pounds of beans is like what, a few dollars (same goes for rice/pasta)? Whereas a couple of pounds of beef is what, 20?
They don't eat the same meat every single day, but different kinds of meats, sometimes even pass on the meat from time to time and go for something different.
Great! Then, could you provide citations for the "equal number of studies that show the opposite?"
I'm not a vegan and won't ever be and I don't have a dog in this fight... I stay out of such arguments of "absolutes."
For "pure" veganism, I might agree with you just as a matter of practical sense - Most people couldn't find the few rare foods needed to provide all of the nutritional requirements of a pure vegan diet. Not everyone has a "Vegan Whole Foods" next door. My grocery store sucks, so I'd quickly be B12 deficient without supplements if I was a vegan. Which I never plan on being. I also only eat a limited amount of certain meats just by preference. /shrug
But, that they're actually "the opposite" in some other way isn't something I've read about. So... "citation please?" :)
PS: Pardon, but couldn't resist - "Dietary Pathologist"... read a certain way sounds like you study "poop." :)