Are We What We Don't Eat? Decade Bygone Study On Equol Production Among Vegans

[I.D WALKER]

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/8/2188.full

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

In general I consider vegetarianism and veganism to be intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

However, there can still be good within the bad. It's likely that vegetarians are more efficient at converting soy into equol because they've usually been eating soy for a very long time.

This is a 3-day study you linked, probably not enough to transform a person's gut bacteria, only enough to measure the status of said bacteria.

Unsweetened soy milk, tofu, and edamame are probably good for everyone to consume on a regular basis.

 

[ReasonableMan]

Intellectually bankrupt ideology? There's far too many arguments for vegetarianism, from both a health and an environmental standpoint to declare vegetarianism intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Intellectually bankrupt ideology? There's far too many arguments for vegetarianism, from both a health and an environmental standpoint to declare vegetarianism intellectually bankrupt.

I've looked into it and I have identified no legitimate health-based arguments for vegetarianism.

There are some legitimate environmental arguments but even those are incomplete. If you're eating offal, bone broth, etc, then you are environmentally neutral at worst.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

In general I consider vegetarianism and veganism to be intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

How so? They desire to limit the suffering of animals by limiting their consumption of animal products. Not only do they limit suffering, they limit financial waste on the resources that are reaquired to raise beef and other meats. The meat industry is also one of the largest sources of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Their position position and convictions seem logical to me.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

How so? They desire to limit the suffering of animals by limiting their consumption of animal products. Not only do they limit suffering, they limit financial waste on the resources that are reaquired to raise beef and other meats. The meat industry is also one of the largest sources of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Their position position and convictions seem logical to me.

Don't shift the goal posts. He said "health an environmental" not "ethical".

The health reasons for vegetarianism are mostly crap, facetious arguments and selection effects.

If you want to be environmentally conscious, you can, but that's not why people do it. Moreover a lot of vegetarianism consume plenty of natural resources so I don't buy that argument at all.

The ethical arguments are more difficult. You have to weigh the relative moral benefit of healthy human diet (which includes animal products) versus animal suffering.

 

[ReasonableMan]

My only complaint was the term "intellectually bankrupt". I must admit that the phrase has a nice ring to it, but I don't feel as though it's appropriate in this instance.

There are probably more vegetarians who choose to not consume animal products for environmental reasons than you think. It is one of the reasons I chose to change my diet.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

In general I consider vegetarianism and veganism to be intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

I don't see you specifying that you were talking about health reasons in this statement.

Don't shift the goal posts. He said "health an environmental" not "ethical".

The health reasons for vegetarianism are mostly crap, facetious arguments and selection effects.

If you want to be environmentally conscious, you can, but that's not why people do it. Moreover a lot of vegetarianism consume plenty of natural resources so I don't buy that argument at all.

The ethical arguments are more difficult. You have to weigh the relative moral benefit of healthy human diet (which includes animal products) versus animal suffering.

I never stated that vegetarianism provides health effects. My position is that one can be perfectly healthy while maintaining such a diet. You state that most people don't consume a vegetarian/vegan diet to help the environment. I would ask how you know this when there are 10,000,000 vegetarians in the US and only a minuscule minority posts their motives online. You also make the assumption that many vegetarians consume plenty of natural resources. First, how can you know this without making a sweeping assumption? Second, vegetarianism and veganism are about reducing suffering and damage to the environment, not eliminating it entirely. Anyone with an average mental capacity would realize that suffering and environmental damage is next to impossible to avoid in this modern society. You argument states that if harm can't be eliminated, one shouldn't even begin to attempt to minimize it. I'm used to more level headed and reasonable responses from you, David.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I don't see you specifying that you were talking about health reasons in this statement.

It's easy to distort meaning when you truncate a post.

The post as a whole is clearly discussing health.

Never mind the context of what I was responding to.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

It's easy to distort meaning when you truncate a post.

The post as a whole is clearly discussing health.

Never mind the context of what I was responding to.

You claimed the vegetarianism and veganism were intellectually bankrupt. These diets are more nuanced than just "health reasons". When you pass judgement on a diet just for the perception that the health reasons are flawed, you ignore a multiplicity of other factors. And would you care to address the rest of my reply?

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

You claimed the vegetarianism and veganism were intellectually bankrupt. These diets are more nuanced than just "health reasons". When you pass judgement on a diet just for the perception that the health reasons are flawed, you ignore a multiplicity of other factors. And would you care to address the rest of my reply?

Given that you misleadingly truncated my post and ignored context, and you subsequently fail to acknowledge the error, I don't really care to.

 

[Dench57]

Given that you misleadingly truncated my post and ignored context, and you subsequently fail to acknowledge the error, I don't really care to.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

Given that you misleadingly truncated my post and ignored context, and you subsequently fail to acknowledge the error, I don't really care to.

You just ignored to entire comment that you just replied to, in addition to the comment before that. I guess that's what people when they realize their statement was gross and unsubstantiated. I never pegged you as the type to plug your ears and say "NANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". I literally just explained why what I said was not an error, what with you characterizing an entire lifestyle as "intellectually bankrupt" on the basis of one small factor in a sea of others. You're acting childish.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

View attachment 42094

Lol, I'm honored that you would take the time to do such a beautiful photoshop job.

 

[Dench57]

Lol, I'm honored that you would take the time to do such a beautiful photoshop job.

hah! as if I could use photoshop. MS paint is the limit of my ability. and it shows

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

You just ignored to entire comment that you just replied to, in addition to the comment before that. I guess that's what people when they realize their statement was gross and unsubstantiated. I never pegged you as the type to plug your ears and say "NANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". I literally just explained why what I said was not an error, what with you characterizing an entire lifestyle as "intellectually bankrupt" on the basis of one small factor in a sea of others. You're acting childish.

*deep sigh*

Did you even read the abstract linked by the opening post?

This thread is about health aspects, as is the forum.

Have we ever had a thread about the environment on this forum?

Ever?

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

*deep sigh*

Did you even read the abstract linked by the opening post?

In general I consider vegetarianism and veganism to be intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

This is a statement that encompasses the entirety of vegetarianism and veganism. Note the phrase "in general".
The definition of general is: considering or including the main features or elements of something, and disregarding exceptions; overall.
If your aim was to speak specifically to the health aspects of the lifestyle, you would have said "I consider the health factors of vegetarianism and veganism to be intellectually bankrupt."

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

This is a statement that encompasses the entirety of vegetarianism and veganism. Note the phrase "in general".
The definition of general is: considering or including the main features or elements of something, and disregarding exceptions; overall.
If your aim was to speak specifically to the health aspects of the lifestyle, you would have said "I consider the health factors of vegetarianism and veganism to be intellectually bankrupt."

I'm sorry you extrapolated incorrectly but I was clearly was referring to health reasons. This is a health website, the title is discussing health, the abstract is discussing my health, and my post was discussing health.

For whatever it's worth I was also not referring to the religious arguments for vegetarianism (partial or complete). Hindus don't eat beef, Jews don't eat most animals and have strict rules preventing cruelty to animals, and vegetarianism is also mandated in Jainism. My comment was not in reference to the religious arguments against vegetarianism.

Here's my post again:

In general I consider vegetarianism and veganism to be intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

However, there can still be good within the bad. It's likely that vegetarians are more efficient at converting soy into equol because they've usually been eating soy for a very long time.

This is a 3-day study you linked, probably not enough to transform a person's gut bacteria, only enough to measure the status of said bacteria.

Unsweetened soy milk, tofu, and edamame are probably good for everyone to consume on a regular basis.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

I'm sorry you extrapolated incorrectly but I was clearly was referring to health reasons. This is a health website, the title is discussing health, the abstract is discussing my health, and my post was discussing health.

For whatever it's worth I was also not referring to the religious arguments for vegetarianism (partial or complete). Hindus don't eat beef, Jews don't eat most animals and have strict rules preventing cruelty to animals, and vegetarianism is also mandated in Jainism. My comment was not in reference to the religious arguments against vegetarianism.

Here's my post again:

In general I consider vegetarianism and veganism to be intellectually bankrupt ideologies.

However, there can still be good within the bad. It's likely that vegetarians are more efficient at converting soy into equol because they've usually been eating soy for a very long time.

This is a 3-day study you linked, probably not enough to transform a person's gut bacteria, only enough to measure the status of said bacteria.

Unsweetened soy milk, tofu, and edamame are probably good for everyone to consume on a regular basis.

Once again, the word general means: considering or including the main features or elements of something, and disregarding exceptions; overall. Now you are backpedaling that comment in an attempt to save face. If you were, in fact, speaking directly to the health factors, then your phrasing was far off the mark. It was not incorrect extrapolation, it was your error in word use/phrasing. However, I'm glad to see that you implicitly acknowledge the silliness of the blanket generalization that vegetarianism and veganism are intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Once again, the word general means: considering or including the main features or elements of something, and disregarding exceptions; overall. Now you are backpedaling that comment in an attempt to save face. If you were, in fact, speaking directly to the health factors, then your phrasing was far off the mark. It was not incorrect extrapolation, it was your error in word use/phrasing. However, I'm glad to see that you implicitly acknowledge the silliness of the blanket generalization that vegetarianism and veganism are intellectually bankrupt.

PTBA,

There is always the risk of misinterpreting people's comments if you ignore contexts and truncate their speeches, which is what you have done.

My post was clearly discussing health aspects. The thread was clearly discussing health aspects.

I normally like your post. But what you did here is that you read one sentence you didn't like, perseverated, and ignored context.

You should never ignore context.

I understand what you mean with "general", but on the other hand you also understand that I was not discussing Jainism or Judaism or Hinduism. Your extrapolation was partial and arbitrary, to ethics and environment. I'm sure that in spite of your stubbornness you understand that I was not referring to every argument for vegetarianism ever made.