With logic like Ben Rukle's, I'm surprised he's not advocating Soylent Green:
It's full of nutrients that people need, since it's made from people.
It's environmentally friendly because humans are a renewable resource.
It's ethical cause people these days live comfortable lives, so it's fine to kill them in their teens.


The good old "killing humanely" argument. Yes it's better than factory farming, but killing a human in a nicer way is still murder by law, and so is treating them nicely before killing them.
If ethical living is his goal, then he's failed.

I've also heard his story many times. Eats mainly vegan junk food, which lacks nutrients (as does all processed junk food), and then somehow links that to all vegan food being unhealthy.

This is why I'm always banging on about eating unprocessed whole foods, they are nutrient dense.

You'll also notice that at the end they are eating specifically processed meat - the type proven to cause cancer. (as well as the worlds #1 killer heart-disease).
If he wants healthy food, then he's failed.


When it comes to sustainability, foods like potatoes, rice, and grains give you the most calories output for energy/water/land put in.
There also simply isn't enough land on the planet to farm animals this way and feed everyone.
If he wants sustainable farming, then he's failed.


Also he looks like he's about 2 years late for a heart-attack.

Duh. Soylent green is made from elderly people, not teenagers, and as such it's made from pretty tainted meat. I'll take some Soylent pink, made from pure milk fed baby.

Not murder if they're terminally ill and ask you to do it, in many states.

Far more ethical to work for proper animal treatment than to insist on something that will never happen in a way that makes those you wish to convince your adversaries. He'll get WAY farther towards ending some animal suffering that your methods ever will. Your methods have had many people reply to you that they will eat MORE meat just to spite you, or so you've said in the past....so your methods are obviously failing badly, so are unethical as they cause MORE animal suffering.

Most available vegan food is processed today, so is in the same category you put bacon and deli turkey. Unprocessed meats are also far healthier than processed meats, and are more nutrient dense than plants.

Depending on the curing process, it can be bad or good (and again, not PROVEN to cause cancer...you just backed off that claim on the other thread...so why make it again?)

He wants less harm done to animals....so he's winning. he wants people to eat MORE healthily, he's winning. He wants to move away from a zealous, all or nothing movement that's failing in it's goals and making enemies in the effort, he's winning.

There isn't enough available land to switch to purely vegetarianism either, you're point is ridiculous, no one is advocating feeding all people on pure meat....he's not even advocating for vegetarians to eat meat, and said so clearly. If you had a point to make, then you've failed.

You say that like vegans aren't mostly pasty sickly looking people that look about 2 years late for death by wasting syndrome.

I'm starting to think that you like arguing for the sake of arguing. Because I refuse to believe that anyone can be this stupid.

*history *food *nature

Adding video to channels (Food, History, Nature) - requested by ant.

Vegan shows lack of tolerance for other person's opinion.

More at 11.

Living in Thailand, I've grown to really appreciate locally grown meat and produce in comparison to massive factory farm stuff.

One good example: Tilapia fish. Back home in the US, I thought Tilapia was disgusting. It tastes like algae, because they are raised in man-made concrete tanks and fed exclusively on algae that is easy to grow. They won't breed in those conditions, so they have to pump in hormones to basically force them to reproduce, more hormones to make them grow quickly, etc. etc.

Here in Thailand, I live in a town close to a lake. If you go to the lake you can see huge enclosures made of nets, which keep the Tilapia contained but otherwise living very normal fish lives. They get a natural lake diet of insects, plants, etc., no need to give them any extra food. They reproduce without any encouragement.

Talk to one of the fish farmers, and they will pull up some of the net and present you with several fish to choose from. Point one out and they will pull it out, smack it on the head to kill it instantly, and then scale and gut it for you and put it in a bag. From alive in the lake to dinner in 15-20 minutes.

Or, if you go to a local market in town, people have stalls set up that serve the middleman function. They go to the lake and buy 20-50 Tilapia to put into a big tank in the back of their pickup, and keep them alive in there for a day or two until they are sold, for a slight markup so you don't have to drive out to the lake.


Roughly the same thing applies to pork, chicken, and most fruits and vegetables. Somewhat for beef also, but there is less of that since most Thais follow a branch of Buddhism that discourages killing/eating cows. So, gotta go to the Islamic Thai shops for beef.

Maybe the system here is old-fashioned, quaint, or a bit backwards ... but everything is really nice, fresh, and tasty compared to supermarket stuff back in the US.

Wow. Like many misinformed university students, he was not 'craving meat" and feeling unhealthy because he was vegan. He was feeling unhealthy because rather than eating unhealthy meat, he ate unhealthy processed fake shit.

Try greens, vegetables, fruits, whole grains, mushrooms, nuts, and seeds and you'll find yourself quite healthy. And, according to the preponderance of science (not funded by the meat and dairy industry) you'll be much, much more healthy. It's very similar to the smoking industry when they were found to be unhealthy.

It's also similar to the climate change "controversy" and anti-vax "controversy". Science is in complete agreement that a vegan diet is way more healthy than any other diet, but smoke screens are made so that people give up because they're confused, and frankly would just like to eat meat without feeling like assholes.

Check out nutritionfacts.org, a doctor who just goes through contemporary studies in nutritional science. Just the science.

Try starting here if you truly believe in science.

Not true.

I think you may want to switch 'vegan diet' with 'plant based diet'. There are plenty of vegans who have shit diets and are unhealthy.

If you eat fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, whole grains, and fresh non processed hormone free meats, all in moderation, you'll be healthier.

Hilarious that you start by lambasting him for eating vegan but poorly, then instantly forget what you said in paragraph one and lie that a vegan diet is automatically better...It's simply not that simple.

Eating healthy is healthier than not. That's the best you can honestly say.

Nutritionfacts.org is run by a lying, constantly exaggerating quack that's been repeatedly debunked for making things up and cherrypicking data and studies to fit his preconception and further his movement. He said the WHO said going vegetarian is equivalent to quitting smoking.....it's a lie, they said no such thing or anything close. The science says eating processed meat daily increased cancer risk for colorectal cancer by 18%, and smoking increased cancer risk by 2000%. Not equivalent at all.
Downvote for fibbing about science and for hyping a liar.

Dr. Greger has never claimed that the W.H.O said that.

SFW - south park
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/33/42/c0/3342c0eb46a813f5d371546372aa81db.jpg

Fair enough.

First off, I would go as far to say that most vegans are more unhealthy than omnivores because they think exactly that -- I'm vegan so nothing can go wrong! That's exactly what I'm saying.

Secondly, can you cite somewhere that says he and his volunteers do this alleged cherry-picking. This is sort of his point -- if you don't have a citation, then it's frankly not valid.

In fact, he just came out with a video explaining his process for picking studies and it's pretty damn thorough. I'd like to know where you get this info that he cherry-picks.

It's true that he could be merely claiming that this is his process, but then the only way to verify it is to literally watch him as he does the research on the research. There's only so much you can trust. But the fact that he does not profit on the site at all makes me also wonder why he'd have any motive to "further his agenda".

I'm glad you admit that freely. Many vegans insist the opposite.
Read the linked site, it gives at least one clear example of his cherrypicking.
The fact that he felt the need to put out a video to explain how he 'picks' studies is a good indicator that there's a problem.
He profits off the site by suggesting donations to his charity, and I think advertising videos, books, and paid appearances. It's totally disingenuous to suggest he doesn't profit in any way, he makes his living 'selling' this lifestyle, this particular site is, in essence, the advertising wing of his operation.

I don't see a linked site.

And in regards to the WHO "saying" that going vegetarian (he more likely said plant-based vegan, but I'm too lazy to look around), I don't remember where he said that, but if the WHO didn't outright say that, maybe it's just a matter of logic that if they say quitting smoking decreases your likelihood for premature death by X% and going plant-based decreases your likelihood for premature death by >=X%, then effectively they are "saying" that.

But this is all speculation, because I have no idea which paper/video you guys are talking about.

My mistake, it was from another thread....
http://videosift.com/video/Taking-Personal-Responsibility-for-Your-Health
The link...http://thatnerdysciencegirl.com/2015/11/13/the-case-against-dr-michael-gregernutritionfacts/

I was wrong, he only implied the WHO said that, using their announcement to make the false analogy. Smoking increases your chances of cancer by >2000%, eating processed red meat daily increased chances of colorectal cancers by 18%. They are in no way equivalent...but he claims they are, and goes even farther by saying that switching to a plant based diet is equivalent to quitting smoking, ignoring that the paper he references only contains results based on processed/cured red meats, and ignoring the 2000%vs18%, and ignoring the far more deadly cancers caused by smoking. That's a hell of a lot of extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation for one sentence.