hard to be anger w/y'all.

pity tends to water down any ire.

reading the sadness in this kind of comment makes one pine for better educational systems, social programs akin to baseball for youths, and likely, just better nutrition for all Americans.

the thickness of saying something that dense has to be organic.

I just see tons of calories and little nutritional value. It however sounds like it would feel amazing in my mouth

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

Have I said any such things? I certainly don't recall saying any of that.
You must note, however, that the overreaction you get from some people likely stems from attempts to shame them using exaggeration, hyperbole, and even outright lies, which tend to make enemies to your cause rather than converts. I've never met a vegan that didn't operate that way to some degree. Perhaps those people are just giving back the same level of honest discussion and discourse they received. There's apparently something about veganism that makes it's practitioners think their movement is more important that fact and truth, like the "Dr." (and his followers) who claimed eating any amount of any red meat is just as carcinogenic as smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, citing WHO studies that said nothing of the sort. Many have said "If you agree with my goal, stopping animal suffering, why would you contradict my claims, even though I privately agree they're exaggeration and fantasy?". Ends don't justify means imo, and nothing justifies lying.

I don't need a degree in nutrition or to be a dietitian to understand the basics covered in multiple health classes I've passed and multiple scientific studies I've read. Is meat healthy? Yes....if it's raised and prepared properly and eaten in moderation. Is meat unhealthy? Yes...when eaten excessively or prepared unsafely.
Is veganism healthy? Yes....when practiced properly with a balanced diet that has all the nutrients humans need. Is veganism unhealthy? Yes...it is the way it's practiced by most vegans who don't have a grasp on what proper nutrition is. It's definitely harder to have a balanced healthy diet without any animal products, but isn't impossible.

Once again, I feel you are being fast and loose with fact by implying any of those statements have come from me. The only people I expect to die 6 times in a row are the ones in my dungeon that I'm keeping alive to prolong their torture....and they know what they did to deserve it. ;-)

Food shaming? I know all about that.

Apparently all I eat is grass, my teeth will rot, my bones will be weak, and I'll die 6 times in a row from protein deficiency. That's just on the daily. Despite me never eating meat in my 51 years of life (Indian parents).

The real clever people like to tell me that I'll make the cows go extinct, and the next person will tell me that the cows will overpopulate the earth if we don't eat them.

Don't worry about doing a degree in nutrition, just tell someone you don't eat animal foods, and they'll become a dietitian in about 4 seconds :-)

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

I mean sure, you can claim bias. But I just hope you are claiming it both ways, because guess who the Nutrition Coalition you linked is funded by?

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

It's important to know this is apparently not peer reviewed science (co-authors reviewing each other's claims is not real peer review), and is not verified by experimental data...not a single clinical trial, only epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.
Close examination finds it lacking in many areas.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

What?! Transmorpher posted a set of pro vegan videos that claim to be "up to date on the latest nutritional and health research"? Never seen that before, at least this one doesn't claim moderate meat consumption will absolutely give you cancer.

Almost like veganism is a *cult instead of lifestyle or health plan.

It's not time you lack, I got an A in statistics which I took after advanced placement B/C calculus, thank you.
Please stop hyper exaggerating the danger of all animal products and the benefits of veganism.

No, we're acting like +1% lifetime risk of one type of cancer, from 5%-6%, is a totally acceptable level of risk to trade for a lifetime of pleasure when taken knowingly, and is a far cry from +18% every time you eat bacon. It's probably far less than the additional risk of drinking municipal water, or breathing anywhere East of the West coast, certainly exponentially less than breathing air in any major metropolitan area, or living within 25 miles of a military base or airport.

I'm also acting like people who lie about or misrepresent the stats only prove their position is untenable and that they're untrustworthy. If 1% total increased lifetime risk is enough to make your point, why erroneously claim +18% per serving? It makes it so easy to dismiss and overlook any real point you might have had.

Nothing is unanimous, and that goes double for nutritional advice. Somewhere there's a doctor that insists you can't possibly get enough nitrates, most would say if you're healthy go ahead and have some bacon...in moderation. My doctor and numerous documentaries say the stress of worrying incessantly about every little risk factor is a much bigger risk factor than almost any other for innumerable disorders and diseases. I'll take his advice, thanks.

Both of your examples are demonstrably false.

Masaai have a life expectancy of what 44? http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/features/2004/maasai/maasai_03.shtml


Who eats the most fish in the world? (factory farm cows actually) but in the human population, it's the Inuits. And they have the worst health of any people on earth. So clearly fish aren't the thing bringing the health. Their health actually gets better when they go to a standard american diet. that's how bad eating fresh wild caught fish is.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LvGiiZyn-M

Okinawans have the opposite diet of the Inuits - mostly plants, and little amounts of fish, and they have the opposite health of the Inuits too.

Less fish and more plants = better health. Therefore fish cannot be a health food.


It's also VERY easy to meet all of your nutritional needs as a vegan, yeah those hippie dippy idiots that eat all raw foods are asking for trouble, but anyone who eats regular food with grains, beans, fruit, nuts and vegetables will get everything they need. A few fortifided foods here and there and no supplements are required. (and please don't pretend like vegans are the only ones eating fortified foods- salt is fortified with iodine, and dairy is fortified with vitamin D by US law). Anyway, point is the cheapest and easiest foods to cook are the healthiest ones - the same foods that everyone in the bluezones eats, and nobody is saying those bluezone foods are expensive or hard to make.

That's what this whole video is about, identifying the foods that are health promoting, and in vegans and in Mediterranean diets (and other bluezones diets) it's the exact same foods that are providing the health. The plants, the cheap, easy to cook and readily available plants.

I'll even level with you, there's a lot of stupid people out there who happen to be vegan and they say a lot of stupid crap, but everything I post is backed up by science. I went vegan because of the health science, the ethics to me came later (perhaps I'm a bit slow, because I didn't want to see the ethics, while I was part of the system, but that's a story for another time )

No sir....we KNOW vegans are lying.
What I can't understand is why.
There's plenty of evidence that plant based (not vegetarian or vegan) diets are the healthiest choice.
There's plenty of evidence that vegan diets are almost always lacking in nutrition....they can be healthy but it's a full time and expensive proposition.
You are wrong, studies on cultures that eat large amounts of fish show it's good, and most weren't funded by the fishing industries. The Massai are pretty healthy too, and they eat and drink beef, blood, and milk almost exclusively. They have been studied extensively. You seem to always feel compelled to exaggerate enough to be wrong.

He did mention fish/white meat, however he was making the point that meats aren't what is making them healthy - the Mediterraneans are healthy despite these animal foods. They are healthy because of the large intake of whole plant foods, as is the case in Japan.

And we know this, because within Japan itself there's a clear relationship between health, and amount of animal products consumed. The traditional Okinawan diet (the place which has the most centenarians int he world) is just 6% calories from animal products, the rest being from sweet potato and rice and veg. Where as mainland Japan where they eat more animal products they don't do as well as their Okinawan neighbors.

This relationship of animal food intake & rates of chronic diseases works on a local level or a global level. Less is always better, all the way to none (Loma Linda 7th day Adventists many of which are vegan by religion tend do the best out of all of the blue zones, when it comes to chronic disease).



------


Omega 3 is present in so many plant foods - such as flaxseed/linseed, hemp, chia, and even sea algae (which is where the fish get their omega 3 from)

The benefit of getting omega 3 from plant sources means almost no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no mercury, no IGF-1 raising protein structures (and no antibiotics if you are eating farmed fish). Also they say the ocean will be fishless by 2048..... (which also coincides with the Post Atomic Horror era for the Trekkies out there lol)

Fish also don't have any fiber, (the one macro nutrient everyone pretends doesn't exist, and most people are deficient in). Stay regular and prevent diverticulitis/diverticulitis, and avoid hemorrhoids, and even varicose veins.

Flax also contains lignans which prevents/treats prostate cancer https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/flaxseed-and-prostate-cancer.


You just get so much more nutrition out of plants over all. Animal products tend to have a higher amount of a single compound or nutrient, but they have a lot of baggage with it. It's like buying a car, you don't necessarily want the one with the biggest engine, the total package is what's important.


------

Whether or not Barnard is a vegan shill, doesn't change the nutritional profiles of foods as shown above.

It also doesn't change the fact he looks, acts and speaks amazing for someone that's 65 years old - clearly putting his theory into practice with wonderful results. And while that is anecdotal, that's certainly something nobody would say about Atkins, or Loran Cordain (Paleo advocate) or Jimmy Moore (Keto advocate), who all look like they could drop dead any minute (and Atkins literally did drop dead).

Conservatives: FAKE DATA. NASA is just saying this to make money [but the denial stuff is all sponsored by the fossil fuel industry who somehow isn't biased]. Climate change is fake. If you think about it, CO2 is good for plants [most are doing their max exchange, and it makes them have less nutrition... plus most of the globe isn't green, it's blue or desert... would be one thing if there was a way to keep that CO2 where the plants actually were and down where they were], its what they breath. It's a war on coal and oil. Ice levels in the Antarctic are rising [some data suggests it has, and may, but it is offset by Greenland ice loss alone, let alone ice loss from every other place like Alaska, Canada, Russia, the Nordic countries, etc]. It's cold here on January 3, so much for global warming [odd they never mention the problem on August 23 or whatever]? They said there's going to be an ice age back in the 70's [they can't show the science papers, just an article in Newsweek or Time], and just last year or so, they said solar minimums will result in another mini-ice age [again, no, nothing about climate in the actual science paper, just the press running their own version of the paper].