Militant Vegans

[VanDeBank]

No, I'm talking about cows and their digestion.

Protein for weight training - output - is different for standard living. But yeah, good protein intake is good, too much is bad for kidneys. Balance is key.

Good point. There's no need for excessive protein, and in fact its been linked to greater cancer risk, in addition to the usual suspects (heart disease, obesity, diabetes etc).

The Dr. Feigenbaum article cites a bunch of studies that debunk this:

Finally, protein intakes higher than the RDA appear to safe and well-tolerated in individuals without apparent kidney disease. Antonio 2014 Wu 2016 Poortmans 2000 Brandle 1996

Protein intakes up to 4.4 g/kg/day have been shown to be safe and well-tolerated in humans.

Having said that I don't see the point in high protein consumption for non-trainees, which is why I have been vegan/vegetarian (environmental, animal welfare and financial reasons).

However, If one would follow the recommendations/guidelines for health and longevity, it would include resistance training and a somewhat higher protein training for most individuals, since maximizing training outcomes makes you stronger, and strong correlates with healthy (google grip strength as a predictor of all cause mortality). In addition the recommendation for optimizing training outcomes for endurance athletes was 1,4g/kg and the correlation between VO2 max and health (and aerobic exercise and health) is much stronger than that of resistance training.

This, in addition to the lack of vitamin b12 and omega 3 fatty acids from animal sources is why I think veganism is suboptimal for health. All the national health institutes that set dietary guidelines do not promote veganism for health reasons.

The healthiest cultures on earth eat it very sparingly, whereas some of the unhealthiest consume it in abundance. This is why these "eat more protein" debates should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

I don't think anyone is recommending to "eat more protein" as a baseline recommendation, unless you're hooked up to the dialysis machine maybe. This is a red herring.

Can you link some sources for the bolded? As I recall the often cited Japanese or "Mediterean diet" contains quite a bit of fish.

 

[Lee565]

Bodybuilding is marketing, not a sport. He's not competitive in anything, not even in the "sport" of bodybuilding. Bodybuilders are born bodybuilders. This guy competes in "physique", which is modeling with steroids and he isn't competitive in it. There are a lot of IFBB pro card holders. it makes the IFBB quite a bit of money and this bloke hasn't won anything other than the minor competitions that got him his pro card (at 100$ a year I think?). He makes his money off sponsorships and marketing, off gullible vegans, not unlike other bodybuilders that do this through supplements to the wider population.


I'm a recreational athlete, not a bodybuilder. I'm a gay woman, so I don't give a feck about male impotence.

Hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction associated with soy product consumption
An unusual case of gynecomastia associated with soy product consumption

As someone serious about training and health, I avoid regular intake of soy foods, and I'd recommend others serious about their training to avoid large quantities.




The only thing nonsense here is your own post. a scoop of whey protein (30g) contains 25g of protein. It's about 22g for a similar serving of pea protein. A cup of cooked beans is about 15g. Two of those added makes about 52 grams of protein added all together over 600 calories.

I don't know what kind of "regular food" you're talking about. but lets add some nuts and bread. 100g of walnuts contain about 15g of protein (at 600 calories)

100g of whole wheat bread (almost 3 slices) is 13g of protein at about 250 calories.

Let's say we add 9 slices of bread and 100g of walnuts. We're at 1950 calories with 106g of protein.

That's a perfectly adequate amount for a sedentary person, but not for a lifter, let alone one of old age. The protein is also of inferior quality. Animal products contain far higher amounts of the amino acids that drive muscle protein synthesis, most importantly leucine (and isoleucine and valine to a lesser extent). 100g of bread contains 0,33g of leucine. 100g of lean chicken breast 2,5g. (whey has 2,5g of leucine per 30g scoop!)

The point of training is to get stronger. Strong correlates very well with a reduction of all cause mortality (and grip strength even a better predictor of early death than blood pressure). It's also very important for quality of life, especially in elderly populations. Think about nursing home populations. Yes, they have some underlying conditions, but those conditions make them weak, and that's why they're in a nursing home and can't get of the toilet without using their hands or keeping falling and breaking their hips. Their absorption for protein is also decreased. If you wanted to get them out of the nursing home, you'd have them resistance train and eat adequate amounts of protein, which cannot be done on a vegan diet without taking a a lot of protein powder and other pills. Promoting a vegan diet for this rather large population is irresponsible.

You've listen to too much vegan propaganda and didn't do enough critical thinking.

You calling it "nonsense", just means you don't want to accept it as true because it clashes with your established beliefs. If you want an actual discussion about it, you need to be more specific.

From my own experience of bodybuilding on a plant based diet, I could easily get 180 - 220g of protein but that amount was not really needed and hover around 130 - 150g without barely using protein powder and to make it harder I eat a hell of a lot of veggies and fruit.

It wasn't an exciting diet but hey neither is the carnivore diet focusing on bodybuilding (which I also use to do) which mainly revolves around chicken/egg, rice and broccoli.

 

[Raoul]

Can you link some sources for the bolded? As I recall the often cited Japanese or "Mediterean diet" contains quite a bit of fish.

There have been countless studies done on the five blue zones (aka the five areas in the world where humans live the longest).

They generally eat largely plant based diets with sparing amount of animal products (fish mainly). The protein intake is far less than in your average society and the people live the longest. There's literally a ton of evidence based research on this which has been discussed previously in other threads.

https://www.bluezones.com/2020/07/blue-zones-diet-food-secrets-of-the-worlds-longest-lived-people/

 

[Raoul]

From my own experience of bodybuilding on a plant based diet, I could easily get 180 - 220g of protein but that amount was not really needed and hover around 130 - 150g without barely using protein powder and to make it harder I eat a hell of a lot of veggies and fruit.

It wasn't an exciting diet but hey neither is the carnivore diet focusing on bodybuilding (which I also use to do) which mainly revolves around chicken/egg, rice and broccoli.

There is also new research that backs up your experience. If one weighs 220lbs - 150g of protein should be sufficient for gains. That is far less than what fitness industry charlatans who profit off selling protein powder to easily led teenagers online recommend (for obvious reasons).

 

[Wibble]

There have been countless studies done on the five blue zones (aka the five areas in the world where humans live the longest).

They generally eat a largely plant based diets with a sparring amount of animal products (fish mainly). The protein intake is far less than in your average society and the people live the longest. There's literally a ton of evidence based research on this which has been discussed previously in other threads.

https://www.bluezones.com/2020/07/blue-zones-diet-food-secrets-of-the-worlds-longest-lived-people/

I also suspect that there would be a similar correlation between calorie restriction and longevity.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Agreed. Its obviously a stretch to suggest its directly from plants, just as its a stretch that B12 comes from animals.

Agreed

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Good point. There's no need for excessive protein, and in fact its been linked to greater cancer risk, in addition to the usual suspects (heart disease, obesity, diabetes etc). The healthiest cultures on earth eat it very sparingly, whereas some of the unhealthiest consume it in abundance. This is why these "eat more protein" debates should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

I like your point, but I think because protein intake is usually linked to higher protein foods such as meat which are a) more expensive b) processed into unhealthy meals (burgers and such in America pumped through with chemicals and hormones).

So to make a link that higher protein intake is unhealthy might not track 100% as it'll be skewed by the USA for example, whereas Spain, France and Italy all consume protein yet are pretty healthy.

I think for young lads looking to gain muscle, upping a) calories and b) protein is good advice but alas, like all things in this space, it morphs into, let's eat 900kgs of beef a day because men and boys are silly.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

There have been countless studies done on the five blue zones (aka the five areas in the world where humans live the longest).

They generally eat largely plant based diets with sparing amount of animal products (fish mainly). The protein intake is far less than in your average society and the people live the longest. There's literally a ton of evidence based research on this which has been discussed previously in other threads.

https://www.bluezones.com/2020/07/blue-zones-diet-food-secrets-of-the-worlds-longest-lived-people/

Fish protein is good because it's a vehicle for EPA and DPA Omega 3s as well. Plus culturally warmer, less sedintary etc.

But you're right.

 

[Raoul]

I also suspect that there would be a similar correlation between calorie restriction and longevity.

Indeed. High carb, low to moderate protein, & very low fat diets are obviously also going to be low calorie as well, given the restriction of dietary fats.

 

[VanDeBank]

There have been countless studies done on the five blue zones (aka the five areas in the world where humans live the longest).

They generally eat largely plant based diets with sparing amount of animal products (fish mainly). The protein intake is far less than in your average society and the people live the longest. There's literally a ton of evidence based research on this which has been discussed previously in other threads.

https://www.bluezones.com/2020/07/blue-zones-diet-food-secrets-of-the-worlds-longest-lived-people/

That's a terrible source of information. It contains a lot of bullshit. For instance:

But meat and eggs also deliver fat and cholesterol, which tend to promote heart disease and cancer.

Dietary Cholesterol and the Lack of Evidence in Cardiovascular Disease

To date, extensive research did not show evidence to support a role of dietary cholesterol in the development of CVD. As a result, the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans removed the recommendations of restricting dietary cholesterol to 300 mg/day. .

It's even possible to have perfectly normal serum levels as an 88 year old eating 20-30 eggs a day.

The statement that dietary fat "tends (whatever the feck that means) to promote heart disease and cancer" is idiotic to anyone that knows dietary fat is absolutely essential and takes note of the fact that the statement doesn't give a specific number or range.

Just be perfectly clear, the recommendations and reasoning from the blue zone contradict the nutritional guidelines set out by health organizations across the world that examine all available data. The reason for this that "blue zones" are propagandists, they say so in their mission statement:

Our Values
We believe that a plant-slant diet leads to a longer, healthier life.

So they've made up their mind and aren't objectively examining all the data before coming to a conclusion.

"Plant-based" as used in the film game changers or "plant-slant" as used by the blue zone folk here is not defined and therefore an absolutely meaningless term. The term plant-based/plant-slant can be applied to the standard American diet. Think about where carbs (and sugar) come from. The vast majority of human diets are plant based, meaning if they weren't vegan propagandists, they would tell people to keep doing what they're doing if they thought "plant-based" was the holy grail.

Lack of omega 3 fatty acids, deficiencies in vitamin b12, vitamin d (depending on climate), and the need to carefully select foods that either contain or are fortified with calcium, iron, iodine, selenium are all important considerations for vegans (per NHS). "Plant-based" gives the vegan propagandists wiggle room, because veganism hasn't shown to be a healthier diet than one that contains animal products, unless the data is misinterpreted or cherry picked, such as in all the links you have provided in this discussion.

The founder/author of the blue zones organization and books isn't a medical professional nor an expert in a relevant field, nor holds a science degree even, so it's highly unlikely that this bloke is capable of doing anything profound with epidemiological data.

People can find far better nutritional guidelines on the NHS website or on that of the USDAs. The nutritional guidelines in most countries are quite similar, including those lying in "blue zones".

There have been countless studies done on the five blue zones (aka the five areas in the world where humans live the longest).

They generally eat largely plant based diets with sparing amount of animal products (fish mainly). The protein intake is far less than in your average society and the people live the longest. There's literally a ton of evidence based research on this which has been discussed previously in other threads.

https://www.bluezones.com/2020/07/blue-zones-diet-food-secrets-of-the-worlds-longest-lived-people/

correlation =/= causation. Your arbitrarily focusing on protein intake here (because it correlates with animal products and fits your agenda). I'm sure there is a bunch of other stuff they do differently in the "blue zones". I'm betting their caloric intake is lower, as is their body mass and fat mass,, waist circumference, less sedentary, stronger, higher vo2 max etc, etc.

 

[Raoul]

That's a terrible source of information. It contains a lot of bullshit. For instance:


Dietary Cholesterol and the Lack of Evidence in Cardiovascular Disease


It's even possible to have perfectly normal serum levels as an 88 year old eating 20-30 eggs a day.

The statement that dietary fat "tends (whatever the feck that means) to promote heart disease and cancer" is idiotic to anyone that knows dietary fat is absolutely essential and takes note of the fact that the statement doesn't give a specific number or range.

Just be perfectly clear, the recommendations and reasoning from the blue zone contradict the nutritional guidelines set out by health organizations across the world that examine all available data. The reason for this that "blue zones" are propagandists, they say so in their mission statement:


So they've made up their mind and aren't objectively examining all the data before coming to a conclusion.

"Plant-based" as used in the film game changers or "plant-slant" as used by the blue zone folk here is not defined and therefore an absolutely meaningless term. The term plant-based/plant-slant can be applied to the standard American diet. Think about where carbs (and sugar) come from. The vast majority of human diets are plant based, meaning if they weren't vegan propagandists, they would tell people to keep doing what they're doing if they thought "plant-based" was the holy grail.

Lack of omega 3 fatty acids, deficiencies in vitamin b12, vitamin d (depending on climate), and the need to carefully select foods that either contain or are fortified with calcium, iron, iodine, selenium are all important considerations for vegans (per NHS). "Plant-based" gives the vegan propagandists wiggle room, because veganism hasn't shown to be a healthier diet than one that contains animal products, unless the data is misinterpreted or cherry picked, such as in all the links you have provided in this discussion.

The founder/author of the blue zones organization and books isn't a medical professional nor an expert in a relevant field, nor holds a science degree even, so it's highly unlikely that this bloke is capable of doing anything profound with epidemiological data.

People can find far better nutritional guidelines on the NHS website or on that of the USDAs. The nutritional guidelines in most countries are quite similar, including those lying in "blue zones".


correlation =/= causation. Your arbitrarily focusing on protein intake here (because it correlates with animal products and fits your agenda). I'm sure there is a bunch of other stuff they do differently in the "blue zones". I'm betting their caloric intake is lower, as is their body mass and fat mass,, waist circumference, less sedentary etc, etc.

There is alot of info on blue zones out here, as they are well known among those with an interest in the nutrition.

Second, I don’t have an agenda on the vegan v meat eater debate. I’m a carnivore myself. I just find the arguments against plant based eating to be staggeringly inconsistent with a vast majority of the science, which becomes doubly problematic when people with no background in fitness or nutrition turn into cherry-picked, online Google scholar experts on the topic.

 

[Raoul]

No, but other people have. Here's one example: Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture

89.7 % mentions animal rights as a motivation, 69.3 % health/personal well-being and 46.8 % environmental reasons.

I think this is spot on. Most vegans I've spoken to seem to believe that its easier to keep people vegan if they are emotionally vested in the animal rights angle, whereas the health and wellness piece would to a degree, be based around self-interest, which would seem to not be convincing enough for someone to go plant based for the rest of their lives.

 

[VanDeBank]

There is alot of info on blue zones out here, as they are well known among those with an interest in the nutrition.

Second, I don’t have an agenda on the vegan v meat eater debate. I’m a carnivore myself. I just find the arguments against plant based eating to be staggeringly inconsistent with a vast majority of the science, which becomes doubly problematic when people with no background in fitness or nutrition turn into cherry-picked, online Google scholar experts on the topic.

The removal of an upper limit for cholesterol intake citing lack of evidence was widely reported and is common knowledge. I only searched it in google to find a good source for something I already know (dito the bloke eating 25 eggs a day).

And obviously I dont have the time to debunk all the bullshit in the links you posted. It stand to reason that if they get it so blatantly wrong regarding dietary cholesterol and make an outrageous claim about dietary fat causing cancer and heart disease, it stands to reason that a lot of their other information is bunk as well.

It doesn't matter that you're a self described carnivore (omnivore?). You've said more than a few times that you believe veganism ("plant-based") is healthier and animal foods have adverse health effects. The data is far more nuanced and does not support this.

The Dutch org that sets nutritional guidelines is one of the few that takes environmentalism/sustainability into consideration in their recommendations.
If veganism (or "plant-based") was healthier based on the data, their recommendations for intake wouldn't be set at 40g of cheese, 400ml of (partially) skimmed dairy, 100g of lean white meat and an egg (or more for vegetarians) per day and wild caught fatty fish once or twice a week, which could be defined as "plant-based" depending on interpretation.

 

[Zarlak]

Anyone in the fitness industry, whether they compete or simply endorse products as influencers, are on some form of PEDs.

Its so routine and casual, that unlike in the social media world, no one even bothers to debate it. The golden rule is to always deny it publicly because it would kill sponsorships that are marketed around the mythology that training hard and buying a particular brand of protein powder (or the like) will, if done right, make you look like the fitness model or bodybuilder you saw recommending the product online or on a magazine cover.

Didn't you once spend ages arguing back and forth with me that Mike O'Hearn was natural? @Summit

 

[Raoul]

Didn't you once spend ages arguing back and forth with me that Mike O'Hearn was natural? @Summit

Yep

 

[Spoony]

Nimai Delgado has been vegan since 2014. He was raised vegetarian, and has never eaten meat in his life.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Even vegans can eat clen and tren hard, Spoony.

 

[VanDeBank]

Bodybuilders on steroids are going to synthesize muscle protein at a faster rate than people with a normal physiology (duh). Very lean hard training individuals also benefit from higher intakes of protein for the retention of muscle mass A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in resistance trained lean athletes: a case for higher intakes , such as a bodybuilder in the off season or in competition, respectively.

1g per lbs of body weight is overshooting it, which isn't harmful considering there is no upper limit established and high protein intakes are perfectly The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals , but the advice predates the predates the modern supplement industry. It's literally what bodybuilders have been eating for decades.

I don't give a shit about "bodybuilding", but wanted to clear a misconception about this origin of this adage/baseline recommendation that has been repeated a few times in this thread.

 

[sebsheep]

Bodybuilders on steroids are going to synthesize muscle protein at a faster rate than people with a normal physiology (duh). Very lean hard training individuals also benefit from higher intakes of protein for the retention of muscle mass A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in resistance trained lean athletes: a case for higher intakes , such as a bodybuilder in the off season or in competition, respectively.

1g per lbs of body weight is overshooting it, which isn't harmful considering there is no upper limit established and high protein intakes are perfectly The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals , but the advice predates the predates the modern supplement industry. It's literally what bodybuilders have been eating for decades.

I don't give a shit about "bodybuilding", but wanted to clear a misconception about this origin of this adage/baseline recommendation that has been repeated a few times in this thread.

Feel free to pop in sometime and clear up the misconception around soy intake causing erectile disfunction that has been posted in the thread.

 

[VanDeBank]

Feel free to pop in sometime and clear up the misconception around soy intake causing erectile disfunction that has been posted in the thread.

It doesn't exist, because you're probably referring to very high soy intake (ie a quart short of a gallon of soy milk in one case and another where it was pretty much the only source of protein in the diet).

 

[M15 Red.]

Bodybuilders on steroids are going to synthesize muscle protein at a faster rate than people with a normal physiology (duh). Very lean hard training individuals also benefit from higher intakes of protein for the retention of muscle mass A systematic review of dietary protein during caloric restriction in resistance trained lean athletes: a case for higher intakes , such as a bodybuilder in the off season or in competition, respectively.

1g per lbs of body weight is overshooting it, which isn't harmful considering there is no upper limit established and high protein intakes are perfectly The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals , but the advice predates the predates the modern supplement industry. It's literally what bodybuilders have been eating for decades.

I don't give a shit about "bodybuilding", but wanted to clear a misconception about this origin of this adage/baseline recommendation that has been repeated a few times in this thread.

So in summary. A well planned plant based diet is perfectly adequate for all stages of human life?

 

[sebsheep]

Hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction associated with soy product consumption
An unusual case of gynecomastia associated with soy product consumption

As someone serious about training and health, I avoid regular intake of soy foods, and I'd recommend others serious about their training to avoid large quantities.

It doesn't exist, because you're probably referring to very high soy intake (ie a quart short of a gallon of soy milk in one case and another where it was pretty much the only source of protein in the diet).

I was referring to you linking an article as if it was a thing.

 

[VanDeBank]

So in summary. A well planned plant based diet is perfectly adequate for all stages of human life?

"plant-based" diet is undefined. The reason it's being used by vegan propagandists is because "vegan" can be perceived as a trigger word.

I eat a source of animal protein at every meal and I get most of my calories from plant sources. Am I "plant-based"? I would say so, so plant-based refers to practically everyone that isn't on some carnivore fad diet or an eskimo, which is an insignificant percentage of the population.

The standard American diet is "plant-based" under any definition that doesn't wholly exclude meat and animal products, and not particularly high in protein.

To answer your question, a vegan diet that puts quite a bit of effort into selecting certain foods to get all nutrients and takes pills/fortified foods is indeed adequate. I've only said it's probably suboptimal considering the health benefits from animal foods that are often ignored by these propagandists and vegans hiding behind "plant-based" telling us that meat causes cancer or "cloudy blood" are being dishonest.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Colour me surprised that the most irritating people in the "Militant Vegans" thread aren't the vegans

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

He trains at my local gym.

Anyone in the fitness industry, whether they compete or simply endorse products as influencers, are on some form of PEDs.

Its so routine and casual, that unlike in the social media world, no one even bothers to debate it. The golden rule is to always deny it publicly because it would kill sponsorships that are marketed around the mythology that training hard and buying a particular brand of protein powder (or the like) will, if done right, make you look like the fitness model or bodybuilder you saw recommending the product online or on a magazine cover.

Everyone in the industry knows about what happened to Christian Boeving over a decade ago, and have since adapted accordingly.

Amen. Until proven otherwise, people like that are on PEDs

 

[horsechoker]

Nimai Delgado has been vegan since 2014. He was raised vegetarian, and has never eaten meat in his life.

He looks like a caricature

 

[711]

He looks like a caricature

I'd say grotesque.

 

[Summit]

Didn't you once spend ages arguing back and forth with me that Mike O'Hearn was natural? @Summit

Remember this

 

[M15 Red.]

"plant-based" diet is undefined. The reason it's being used by vegan propagandists is because "vegan" can be perceived as a trigger word.

I eat a source of animal protein at every meal and I get most of my calories from plant sources. Am I "plant-based"? I would say so, so plant-based refers to practically everyone that isn't on some carnivore fad diet or an eskimo, which is an insignificant percentage of the population.

The standard American diet is "plant-based" under any definition that doesn't wholly exclude meat and animal products, and not particularly high in protein.

To answer your question, a vegan diet that puts quite a bit of effort into selecting certain foods to get all nutrients and takes pills/fortified foods is indeed adequate. I've only said it's probably suboptimal considering the health benefits from animal foods that are often ignored by these propagandists and vegans hiding behind "plant-based" telling us that meat causes cancer or "cloudy blood" are being dishonest.

You're not going to try Veganuary, are you?

 

[mitChley]

Clarence Kennedy is vegan and can Snatch 190kg and CJ 220kg+......

...he also admits to be on gear hence why he doesn't compete.

 

[sebsheep]

You're not going to try Veganuary, are you?

It's all vegan propaganda mate

 

[VanDeBank]

You're not going to try Veganuary, are you?

I was vegetarian (pescetarian technically) for a number of years. I don't see the point in switching to a less healthy diet (no wild caught fatty fish) that would require me to supplement with b12 . It would also require me to choose my foods more carefully with regards to vitamin a and calcium content. I'd also need to increase my supplementation of vitamin D and I'd need about 2 kilos of pea protein just get through one month (and my protein intake at 120g/d isn't even that high).

Long term it sounds less healthy than my current diet.

It's all vegan propaganda mate

The health claims are. I've been very specific about it. It's hard to see where you got confused. As I've said countless of times there are legitimate animal welfare and environmental concerns, but I think people should weigh these things against each other for themselves and I don't support bullying poor people into a certain diet/way of living, when it's not black and white. The role of the propagandists is to convince others there are no negatives, and make them accept policies that make choices for other people, because eating meat is like smoking cigarettes.

It's a suboptimal diet and anyone that's accepted veganism as the pinnacle of health has not thought about it critically,

 

[sebsheep]

I was vegetarian (pescetarian technically) for a number of years. I don't see the point in switching to a less healthy diet (no wild caught fatty fish) that would require me to supplement with b12 . It would also require me to choose my foods more carefully with regards to vitamin a and calcium content. I'd also need to increase my supplementation of vitamin D and I'd need about 2 kilos of pea protein just get through one month (and my protein intake at 120g/d isn't even that high).

Long term it sounds less healthy than my current diet.


The health claims are. I've been very specific about it. It's hard to see where you got confused. As I've said countless of times there are legitimate animal welfare and environmental concerns, but I think people should weigh these things against each other for themselves and I don't support bullying poor people into a certain diet/way of living, when it's not black and white. The role of the propagandists is to convince others there are no negatives, and make them accept policies that make choices for other people, because eating meat is like smoking cigarettes.

It's a suboptimal diet and anyone that's accepted veganism as the pinnacle of health has not thought about it critically,

Oh I understood what you posted. I just found it funny that you kept referring to it as vegan propaganda but seemed more than happy to come in here and spread propaganda of your own.

 

[VanDeBank]

Oh I understood what you posted. I just found it funny that you kept referring to it as vegan propaganda but seemed more than happy to come in here and spread propaganda of your own.

Such as?

 

[sebsheep]

Such as?

Do you not remember the soy making men impotent post you made?

High intake of soy can literally make men impotent and give them tits.

When challenged on it, you linked to a study of 1 guy. Reading it, it shouldn't even get past your own correlation/causation comment.
There really isn't much evidence out there to back you up, it is something I did find repeated a lot though, a bit like propaganda.

At other points you were ignorantly posting things or being deliberately deceptive though.
The comment about leucine in lean meat vs a piece of bread for example. It would have taken 30 seconds searching the Internet to find decent vegan sources for it but you chose used something like bread, which people aren't going to be using as a substitute for meat.

 

[Raoul]

Clarence Kennedy is vegan and can Snatch 190kg and CJ 220kg+......

...he also admits to be on gear hence why he doesn't compete.

How does he accomplish this by just eating lettuce all day ?

 

[mitChley]

How does he accomplish this by just eating lettuce all day ?

Lots of prayer

 

[Raoul]

Do you not remember the soy making men impotent post you made?



When challenged on it, you linked to a study of 1 guy. Reading it, it shouldn't even get passed your own correlation/causation comment.
There really isn't much evidence out there to back you up, it is something I did find repeated a lot though, a bit like propaganda.

At other points you were ignorantly posting things or being deliberately deceptive though.
The comment about leucine in lean meat vs a piece of bread for example. It would have taken 30 seconds searching the Internet to find decent vegan sources for it but you chose used something like bread, which people aren't going to be using as a substitute for meat.

Be prepared to be bored into submission with a giant wall of text.

 

[VanDeBank]

Do you not remember the soy making men impotent post you made?



When challenged on it, you linked to a study of 1 guy. Reading it, it shouldn't even get past your own correlation/causation comment.
There really isn't much evidence out there to back you up, it is something I did find repeated a lot though, a bit like propaganda.

At other points you were ignorantly posting things or being deliberately deceptive though.
The comment about leucine in lean meat vs a piece of bread for example. It would have taken 30 seconds searching the Internet to find decent vegan sources for it but you chose used something like bread, which people aren't going to be using as a substitute for meat.

You're the same poster harassing me about this earlier in this thread and I already clarified I wrote "HIGH" intakes of soy, yet you bring it up once again omitting the adjective. Look:

Feel free to pop in sometime and clear up the misconception around soy intake causing erectile disfunction that has been posted in the thread.

It doesn't exist, because you're probably referring to very high soy intake (ie a quart short of a gallon of soy milk in one case and another where it was pretty much the only source of protein in the diet).

There's no data on people eating absurd amounts of soy, because most people aren't dumb enough to do so, just like there's very few people eating 30 eggs a day. There's a case study on both (I actually posted two regarding soy, another mistake on your part), and it's still a dumb idea regardless of what the study says.

How invested in soy are you?

 

[Zarlak]

There's no data on people eating absurd amounts of soy, because most people aren't dumb enough to do so, just like there's very few people eating 30 eggs a day. There's a case study on both (I actually posted two regarding soy, another mistake on your part), and it's still a dumb idea regardless of what the study says.

How invested in soy are you?

'There isn't enough data to support the claim I'm making' is not a good look.