What is the /sci/entific consensus on veganism?

>>8080161
If you have to take supplements to make it work, it don't work.

>>8080161
mental illness

>>8080161
You'd serously trust a scientific consensus? Do you believe the scientific consensus on smoking, junk food, and global warming too?

>>8080209

where did OP say they would trust a scientific consensus?

confirmed retard for implying that the consensus on smoking is wrong

It's a humanities major thing.

>>8080223
>where did OP say they would trust a scientific consensus?

Why else would they even bother asking for it if they didn't want to trust it?

>confirmed retard for implying that the consensus on smoking is wrong

Don't believe everything the government mindlessly tells you.

>>8080161
There are no consensus, my personal opinion, it can't work if you take care of your diet (what happens with every diet)

>>8080234
>>>/pol/

>>8080223
I'll add that smoking is always seen as this massive alto risk but with almost any other vice or health risk it's always correlation =/= causation.

Mercury in cavities, power lines, fluoride in drinking water, etc. etc. is always shoved aside with critical thinking but whenever someone alleges (correctly) that smoking's health risks and dangers are largely overblown on an almost criminal level people stick their heads in the sand.

>>8080241
/pol/ thinks smoking is bad for you too. Come up with a better fucking argument.

Ultimately though veganism isn't always a good idea, but it depends on the person and other factors in the person's life, like genes, exercise, and inherited disorders. Some vegans can get by pretty well. Others can't.

>>8080161
There are mixed reports. At least in my country, animal exports are a very big business and there are many campaigns and reports claiming the health benefits of certain types of meat.

>>8080161

Don't bother asking /sci/ It's one of the things that causes everybody to drop their critical thinking skills and act like dumb apes. Here is some science for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ

Note that the current state of nutritional science is absolutely dismal. You can go on something like examine.com and find contradictory science to most of this. Personally, when you have something like the plant-based diet, which is the only diet that has been shown to reverse heart disease in clinical trials, I find it hard to argue against.

It's good for you. Less resource intensive, too.

There are ways to do it without supplements, but given that a majority of americans are have at least one vitamin deficiency, there should be smarter supplement use across the population. I read a study that concluded that getting vitamins from fresh food results in higher absorption rates than from supplements; that should be the goal.

>>8080161
There can't be any consensus on something that would affect such large industries involving so much money.

>>8080262
want more science?
Try to find the papers yourself, or metastudies.

Red meat consumption has no effect on asian and european populations. It has negligible effect on american populations.

Processed meat is what hurts you. Can't be bothered to look it up, but you can find it easily.

Definitely detrimental to health but you can do whatevver man. If you force your children to be vegan you should definitely go to jail though

>>8080161

It's the future

>>8080413
Except for the fact that the WHO is almost certain that red meats are carcinogenic...

>>8080247
>smoking is bad for you
Tell me about how healthier is smoking for you anon

There are hundreds of estudies showing the corelation between smokers and lung cancer.

>>8080161
>/sci/entific consensus
There never was, is, will be one.

>>8080262
>the only diet that has been shown to reverse heart disease in clinical trials
What's so impressive about this? The vegan propaganda may be seducing, but all it's doing is just dropping atherogenic lipoprotein concentrations to a level low enough to allow for regression. There's nothing really special about it and it's done with drugs all the time in clinical practice.

Also, chemotherapy can reverse cancer. Should everyone be on it by default? If your diet and lifestyle are healthy enough (i.e. just following guidelines by mainstream health authorities, which include animal products like fatty fish and skim milk), and your cholesterol is in range and you're without other major risk factors, you won't ever need to regress heart disease in the first place.

>>8080209
Why are you on a science board?

Humans have been eating meat for tens of thousands of years. It's a scientific fact that we're omnivorous. Without meat, you'll develop a number of health issues, including anemia, caused by vitamin B12 deficiency, which can only be obtained naturally via eating meat. If veganism was natural in humans, then vegans wouldn't need so many vitamin supplements. Simple as that.

Most of the time, these people aren't even doing it because it's supposedly healthier. They only do it because they have a moral superiority complex, hence all the "meat is murder" propaganda.

>>8080855
Thats the point, vegans don't say that is healthier or natural (some may say it and even more retarded things, but it's not the general idea)

Veganism is about life causing the less suffering to other life forms as you can.

>>8080234
So do the fucking study yourself.
Smoke relentlessly for the next few years. Have other idiots do it with you. Chances are that at least one of you develops lung cancer and dies from it. Everyone wins.

Just because something doesn't happen 100% of the time, doesn't mean there isn't a fucking correlation you twit.
>What is a carcinogen

>>8080855
>omnivorous
you're using that word incorrectly

https://www.bowdoin.edu/~dfrancis/askanerd/omni/

It's more energy efficient to use less animal products since muh energy pyramids was kangz n shiet

>>8080181
what supplements do vegans take?

>>8080897
B12 is the most common since it pretty much only comes from animal products. Some also take protein supplements because they're too retarded to sort out their diet.

>>8080899
I ask out of true curiosity, I live in sweden, where there's a lot of vegans, and most of them get by fine without supplements

>>8080901
Well there's these cool bacteria in your guts that actually synthesize b12 and your body stores a 3 years supply.

>>8080703
>>8080882
You people really don't know anything about the history of anti-smoking, do you? This will get you started. Almost every single study on smoking and secondhand smoke was quite obviously bullshit. If you were actually able to analyze the flaws in a scientific study you'd know this.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

It is an ancient Greek word that means "bad hunter".

>>8081024
These also explain more

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6220440.stm
http://wispofsmoke.net/goodreads.html

Retarded cuz meat is tasty

>>8080161

it's good in a lot of ways

but there's some opposition from anti-reason religious people (both theist and atheist version)

>>8080161

Well you have a handful of vegan celebrities that act as the vector and radiate this image of vegan supermen. But the reality is that most of vegans live a sick life. Hard to describe, but all, and I mean all vegans that I've met so far were like zombies. Weak in mind, weak in body. Useless.

>>8081024

interesting read.

>>8080161
>veganism
Markus, unblock me you whiny SJW cuntfag

>>8081197
That does happen but it could be other problems like being inherently weak or not balancing their diet enough.

>>8080161

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371172/French-vegan-couple-face-jail-child-neglect-baby-died-vitamin-deficiency.html

>>8080244
You're talking statistics, generalisation being the refuge of a scoundrel. For those who are affected by smoking, and the cellular changes towards cancer start with one cigarette (research last year, google it), then smoking is devastating. Don't be a dick.

File: 1435481605332.png (10KB, 764x279px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 764x279px

>>8082610
yes, thank you for thinking critically. this is what science is about, right?

>>8080161
Not following the diet of based god Ray Peat

Vegetarian ubermensch

>>8082618
college is the worst scam ever

>>8080901
>get by fine
I know a guy who's 120 lbs at 6'4 and he claims to "go by fine", in reality he's always wearing a jacket even in the summer because he gets cold really fast.

"Going by fine" is a non-argument when you can go better.
A vegan diet either needs to be fortified with B12 or get it from supplements.

>>8080908
Those bacteria don't produce enough.
Rabbits and elephants have the same problem but rabbits eat their own shit, and elephants dirt for their B12

>>8080181
>If you have to take supplements to make it work, it don't work.

Sattvic Jain Dharma called to say you a faggot and then danced a traditional mountain dance.

>>8080244
>power lines
lol wat

>>8080722
>what's so impressive about a diet that can reverse the effects of the leading cause of death in the entire world?

Do I really need to justify this? Are you just trolling? I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Statin drugs do treat atherosclerosis, but not anywhere nearly as well as the plant-based diet does. In fact, many of these drugs have an almost negligible effect on heart disease anyway, since the patients are more than likely participating in the behavior that got them there in the first place! Plant-based diets also have the amazing property of having no detrimental side effects! In fact, the only side-effects are positive, such as lowering your risk of various types of cancer, and reducing hypertension.

>>8080855
>Without meat, you'll develop a number of health issues, including anemia, caused by vitamin B12 deficiency

You bring up the naturalist argument (a fallacy) and manage to present a huge mistake in it right off the bat. Animals do not produce B12 on their own for the most part. The reason animals have B12 is because they are given fortified foods that contain it in the first place. B12 originally came from algae, which would provide humans all the B12 we needed when drinking unfiltered water from the river. Because most of the water we drink today if filtered, we do not get the B12.

You omnivores are actually eating animals that have a supplemented diet themselves! So much for being all natural.

>>8081197
Funny, you sound like someone who is weak in mind since you cannot handle the concept of statistics well.

>>8080161
That you need vitamin B12 supplements, and a scientifically-informed diet.

In the modern world, you need a scientifically-informed diet anyway, since we're surrounded by processed foods that don't offer the same nutrition as the things we evolved eating.

For instance, until very recently in our evolutionary history, sweet foods were scarce and rich in vitamins. Micronutrients in general were abundant and basically impossible to avoid with an adequate intake of macronutrients, with any reasonable amount of variety.

Consequently, our instincts drive us to seek variety and macronutrients. With modern technology, the market is very good at providing these things, but often in forms lacking the micronutrients needed for good health.

Veganism is an increasingly viable option, as we move from artificial selection of walking bioreactors to genetic design of cells which can produce food in factories with a minimum input of labor. It will likely become an irrelevant concept, as food from real, whole animals becomes a sentimental extravagance, with no advantages in flavor, texture, appearance, or nutrition over sophisticated simulants and novel creations.

In the real world, most vegans fuck it up, and give up after a couple of years (often secretly, occasionally sneaking off to binge on animal products without telling anyone). It is harder to survive as a vegan, but it's also hard to stay in good health while surrounded by Doritos and soda.

>>8080161
Pretty much any dietitian (who isn't some self educated vegan) will tell you that you need suppliments with a vegan diet.
A breastfed infant can actually die of vitamin A and vitamin B12 deficiency if the mother is a vegan who takes no suppliments.

The only valid argument I've heard for veganism is that you indirectly kill animals. and since I really don't care, I don't see any reason to become a vegan because it clearly isn't meant for humans

Veganism isn't about nutricion or what is best for you, it's about emotions.

File: MR.jpg (29KB, 289x386px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 289x386px

>>8083254
>Statin drugs do treat atherosclerosis, but not anywhere nearly as well as the plant-based diet does.
>In fact, many of these drugs have an almost negligible effect on heart disease anyway, since the patients are more than likely participating in the behavior that got them there in the first place!
What the fuck are you talking about, retard? How hard did you fail cardiovascular biology? Regression happens with the lowering of atherogenic lipoproteins to a point where there is no longer net deposition in the subendothelial intima. How this is achieved, with intensive drug therapy or lifestyle changes or a combination thereof, doesn't matter.

>Plant-based diets also have the amazing property of having no detrimental side effects!
You're making shit up. Ingesting large quantities of plant secondary metabolites and plant proteins without any carninutrients doesn't cultivate much of an anabolic environment. While there's some data suggestive of this helping with longevity, it's not good for people who care about maximizing their physical and mental functioning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjSl4n_KdOY

>such as lowering your risk of various types of cancer, and reducing hypertension.
So does weight loss or any other healthy omnivorous dietary pattern advocated by mainstream medical organizations and health bodies. If you actually read the literature instead of fringe vegan pseudoscience blogs, you'd see that fish and low fat dairy have anticancer and antihypertensive effects. In fact 50% of the antihypertensive effects of the DASH diet are attributable to the consumption of low fat dairy products.

https://www.aace.com/files/clinical-practice-guidelines.pdf

File: gutpart2.jpg (41KB, 600x460px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x460px

>>8083254
>You bring up the naturalist argument (a fallacy) and manage to present a huge mistake in it right off the bat. Animals do not produce B12 on their own for the most part. The reason animals have B12 is because they are given fortified foods that contain it in the first place. B12 originally came from algae, which would provide humans all the B12 we needed when drinking unfiltered water from the river. Because most of the water we drink today if filtered, we do not get the B12.
There's plenty of evidence against this. For example

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0046414
https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publications/jas/articles/93/2/485

Herbivores have gut flora (either in their rumen or caecum or homologous structure) that synthesize absorbable B12 from dietary cobalt for them. The caecum of humans has atrophied from our frugivorous ancestors and we are now reliant on a dietary source. Most microorganisms in "unfiltered water" produce inactive B12 analogues that exacerbate B12 deficiency and it has never been empirically demonstrated to cure or prevent it.

>>8083575
>Regression happens with the lowering of...

No shit? No one is arguing that. The point is that the drugs that try to fight heart disease are far less effective than the plant-based diet is, without the negative effects that come with medication.

>Ingesting large quantities...

So the downside to the plant-based diet is that you cannot produce a cancer-promoting protein as well as omnivores??? Because guess what, IGF-1 doesn't do shit in terms of inhibiting an anabolism environment in vegans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20527692.1

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jcem.86.4.7377

http://jap.physiology.org/content/108/1/60.full.pdf+html

>So does weight loss or any other healthy omnivorous dietary pattern...

I am not arguing that they don't. My argument was that it is impressive that Plant-Based diets are the only diets that have been clinically shown to reverse heart disease. All the other stuff is just an added bonus.


>>8083608
Yeah, animals can synthesize B12 from dietary cobalt (as well as other sources). So why is there a case against humans getting B12 from the source directly? Also do you have a source of the bacteria in water being an inefficient source of B12? Because this is the first I've heard.

Also keep in mind that this entire argument rests on the naturalist fallacy. It would be better for you just to start a new argument as this one is basically moot from the beginning.

File: 3105013303958741699_n.jpg (51KB, 526x858px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 526x858px

>>8080161
Malnutrition: the ideology

>>8081024
Ok, I will give it a try

>>8083780
>The point is
I already dismantled that point. If they lower atherogenic lipoproteins to the same degree that means they are equally effective. It’s possible to get them down to basically zero with PSCK9is, so that makes them MORE effective than your meme diet ever will be by default.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26586732

>without the negative effects that come with medication.
Wanna know how I know that you’re a clown making shit up again? You don’t bother to link to a head-to-head trial monitoring these "negative effects" (many of which are just active placebo) of drugs vs. your meme diet, which I know you don’t have, to substantiate this. It’s just your feelings, and you’re wrong on /sci/ if you think they belong here.

>So the downside to the plant-based diet is that you cannot produce a cancer-promoting protein as well as omnivores???
Is it painful to be as dumb as you? Oxygen is also cancer-promoting, don't want too much of that either. So please do us a favor and breathe less. Maybe then you'll damage your brain enough that you won't be able to shit up this board with your wealth of ignorance any longer.

>Because guess what, IGF-1 doesn't do shit in terms of inhibiting an anabolism environment in vegans.
Don't make me laugh.

>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20527692.1
This one is discussing the mechanisms behind EXERCISE-INDUCED hypertrophy in a BACKGROUND anabolic drive of IGF-1 and dietary protein. Not a deficit of these things. Here’s a review by the same author less distant from the latter

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2015.00245/full

>>8083780
>http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jcem.86.4.7377
1. A single year is insufficient to see any impact on the outcome variables they’re looking at. Especially in 60+ year old women where the damage is already done. Better to look at Laron's syndrome, with lifelong congenital low IGF-1, and animal models of protein restriction like in the pic I posted earlier.

2. “Protein intake was set at 1.0–1.2 g/kg” - that’s not even enough to fully charge tRNA in humans - http://jn.nutrition.org/content/138/2/243.abstract - which will lead to IGF-1 resistance and not net IGF-1 action. What they’re doing here is analogous to going full throttle on a car with an empty tank of gas.

>http://jap.physiology.org/content/108/1/60.full.pdf+html
These are transitory increases in IGF-1 from a counterregulatory response to the stress associated with exercise. They have nothing to do with chronic elevation of basal concentrations that would be expected from the consumption of high quality animal protein.

>Also do you have a source of the bacteria in water being an inefficient source of B12? Because this is the first I've heard.
lmgtfy.com

Not hard to look up common strains found in 'dirty' water that produce B12 antagonists.

>>8084085
>I already dismantled that point...

Not really. Most of these drugs will not do anything if the user is still eating the standard american diet. And now you want me to defend myself against a drug that is still undergoing phase 3 trails. We will see when the results come in.

>Wanna know how I know...

Most of the rest of your post is just pointless mudslinging. I will be ignoring it.

>This one is discussing...

Ok. Let's just ignore all of it, because it doesn't meet your exact conditions, and go from there. Even if IGF-1 was hot shit, and the differences in IGF-1 between vegans and omnivores were enough to make a significant difference in muscle growth, then who cares? I'll take all of the other benefits of a plant-based diet, the reduced hypertension, reduced risk of cancer, virtually no risk of heart disease, reduced risk of ED, over the ability to build muscle as optimally as I could have otherwise. And it's not like being a vegan means you are unable to build muscle, as many individuals have already proven.

>>8082610
>don't be a dick

I'm not the one taking corrupt agenda-driven and likely pharma funded science to prove that smoking is "bad". I'm not the one basing my opinion on "landmark" studies and statements from health organizations that are utterly biased as fuck written by people with other special interests motivating them or who simply have no understanding of how studies need to be conducted. Don't be an idiot and actually read the link I posted.

>>8080522
You are just going to take their word for it instead of looking up available science based on all studies up to a certain point? K m8, you don't want to know then.
WHO also said homosexuality was a condition one year, and they next they said it wasn't. It's just one big lobbied institution, not the speakers of absolute truth.

>>8084154
>Not really. Most of these drugs will not do anything if the user is still eating the standard american diet.
Don't know why you keep saying that when it's demonstrably false

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192226
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199011083231901
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1110874
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=2411160
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1891594
http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/20/4/641.long

Anti-vaxxer style rhetoric like this kills people

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/30/eurheartj.ehv641.long

>And now you want me to defend myself against a drug that is still undergoing phase 3 trails. We will see when the results come in.
evolocumab with the same MOA is already approved

>And it's not like being a vegan means you are unable to build muscle, as many individuals have already proven.
many individuals prove you can do fine smoking and drinking your entire life, doesn't mean it's optimal

>>8084716
you mean like this science?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511005448
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304383511002539
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/3/1859.long

>>8081024
https://youtu.be/z-8k1gAog40?t=9m51s

>>8081024
>They reintroduced the question about inhaling. Their results continued to show the inhaling/noninhaling paradox.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2589239/pdf/yjbm00061-0033.pdf
>These data played an important part in leading Fisher to doubt that tobacco was a carcinogen. It has subsequently appeared that light smokers deposit little particulate matter on the susceptible part of the bronchi unless they inhale. Heavy smokers, on the other hand, who tend to inhale deeply, deposit less when they inhale than when they do not, since in the former case the smoke moves rapidly to the deeper portions of the lungs [93].


>So what were the results of the Whitehall study? They were contrary to all expectation. The quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the quit group.

http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3513
>Despite the fact that during follow-up many men stopped smoking, and there was also substantial variation in other risk factors

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615479/pdf/amjph00459-0037.pdf
>The Whitehall Study previously reported no difference in risk of death from coronary heart disease between never smokers and ex-smokers after 5 years of follow-up. We re-examined data from the Whitehall study after 18 years of follow-up.
>Former cigarette smokers had mortality risks between those of current cigarette smokers and those of never smokers, a finding similar to those of other cohort studies.
>Mortality increased with duration of smoking and maximum amount consumed and decreased with years since quitting.

>>8084902
1.) that proves nothing, taking something from a tobacco industry internal documents and attempting to discredit it by virtue of being a tobacco memo or the words of the tobacco industry doesn't actually discredit the argument itself. That's a fallacy. Some of their documents have words from scientists that make very good points. Don't give me that conflict of interest crap.

2.) the studies carried out but the surgeon general and multiple others tried so badly to find a risk for smoking, but there are various analyses picking apart these studies and probing they were misinterpreted. Reposting from the other thread because the studies bear repeating.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2523227/posts

Ctrl+f "albie" and go to the second result. The guy points out numerous flaws in all the major tobacco studies. When are you people going to realize that smoking being bad for you is a global warming tier belief system?

>>8085012
If you're trying to somehow take down these studies i should mention the theory that smoking can potentially serve as a form of protection, and smokers only seem to get sick with the commonly presumed illnesses after quitting.

>>8084716
This is why /sci/ blows sometimes; they take an organizations word over the actual results.

>>8086122
How about you look at the actual fucking results then? There is no one questioning that red meats and processed meats are carcinogenic.

>>8080899
Nah. Nutritional yeast has loads of B12.

>>8086709
Did they control for the fact that because meats are typically cooked / roasted? Blackening of foods is a significant source of carcinogens.

>>8080161
it's shit.

>>8080161
indisputably better for the environment than meat eating, possibly more ethical than meat eating, but really fucking hard to do because meat is fucking delicious

i look forward to when we can grow meat in vats because then the moral and environmental questions go out the window and all that's left is the health issues

that being said, i have a few recipes that are vegan and insanely delicious and these recipes make it easy to eat a lot less meat than I used to, I'm healthier, my blood pressure is under control, and my athletic performance is much better

but like i said, meat is fucking delicious

>>8086709
I am questioning it. In fact, a whole field of science is. Meta study I was talking about:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26143683
I quote
>The association between unprocessed red meat consumption and mortality risk was found in the US populations, but not in European or Asian populations.

Use at your discretion. But don't try to convince me that eating slow cooked red meat kills me.

>>8086709
>NO ONES QUESTIONING THE RESULTS FROM A SHITTY STUDY SO IT IS ABSOLUTE

That can be said about a ton of shit, doesn't mean it's bad for you.

Taking studies at face value and not analyzing them leads to ignorance. It's the reason global warming and anti-smoking are so prevalent in the west. These studies are usually inherently deceptive, do not control for certain factors, modify things when they don't get the results they want, etc.

Don't buy into sciencism.

>>8080901
fyi they're either taking a b12 supplement, eating b12-fortified plants (you can get beans like this), suffering from some serious shit like anemia, or they have been vegan for such a short time (a couple years) that they haven't exhausted their b12 stores (it takes a normal human like three years to exhaust b12 stores)

>>8080161
Heres the thing
We've been eating meat for 2 million years(going back as fat as homo erectus)
Life adapts to what it does right?
So to think we've spent two million years adapting to eating meat and then what like 50 years ago hippies started going all vegan and shit and people think its better than meat?
Just doesnt make sense. Forget the studies, use your fucking brain.
Hey i know while we're at it lets stop drinking water and only drink orange juice for the rest of our lives because some art major told me its better

>>8080181
(guy who DEFINITELY has never taken anything for a headache, a cold, and no immunizations for sure)

>>8086771
this is a dumb fallacy
we also evolved to eat until we ran out of food to eat or until we were in pain from eating so much (the latter stretches your gut so over time your ability to consume calories in greater quantities increases)

that being said, it's obvious that engaging in this behavior is hazardous to your health

>>8086787
>>8086787
It's not a fallacy. He's saying that its like saying we evolved to walk on land but using your feet to get around is bad for you.
In fact stuffing yourself is such a stupid analogy because the nerves in your stomach react when your stomach stretches and send pain signals therefore we have evolved to not eat too much. Nice try though.

>>8086787
>Obvious
Citation Needed

>>8080161
It's a meme.

>>8085484
>1.)
"?t=9m51s"

Go to 9:51 and watch from there

>http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2523227/posts
Seriously, would you do this in an actual debate? That's an interesting link and I'll try to reserve some time for reading it, but Gish Galloping to a 490+ post closed thread is not a counterargument

>>8086721
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
>High-temperature cooking methods generate compounds that may contribute to carcinogenic risk, but their role is not yet fully understood.

There are cooking independent ways for it to generate carcinogenicity. Through Neu5Gc, heme, or heme-induced nitrosation for example.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/542.short
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/32/10038.long
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/63/10/2358.long

>>8080413
That's probably because they consume less red meat and the highest quintile of consumption is lower. WCRF/AICR sets a good guideline

http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_05_red_meat.html

>Studies show we can eat up to 18 ounces a week of red meat without raising cancer risk

>>8080262
this, pure cognitive dissonance. I'm disappointed /sci/ thinks this way

>>8080262
If it's just based on no meat>weight loss>better for you (as the thumbnail shows) that would imply it's not a problem to eat meat as long as you're not fat.

>>8081024
Ok, what is your claim then? Do you have one? Is smoking still bad? Is it neutral or not as bad as they say? Healthy? Or do you not make a claim?

>>8080855
>b12 meme
Take a multivitamin

>omnivore meme
10000 years ago we barely had agriculture and were organized into tribal bands. Should we stop farming and having governments?

>meat is murder meme
We are the apex predator so yeah we can do whatever we want but the question is should we? It's a massive waste of resources that hurts primarily other humans. If you care about animals that's great but personally I just don't want other humans to starve. Cattle also massively contributes to deforestation and methane emissions so if you want the global climate and ecosystem to stay pleasant for people it also isn't good.

Just because you don't eat animals doesn't mean you're some fucking hippy who feels bad for animals.

>>8087352
I would say, at the very least, it's neutral with some benefits. I would never call it bad. It would be like saying a diet coke is bad.

This is pretty evident when you look at anti-smoking related studies and ideas supporting that smoking is bad for you.

Potential benefits include staving off diseases and relieving asthma symptoms. Ther is an idea supported by some shaky yet promising evidence, concluding that smoking can possibly protect against lung cancer, as many smokers with lung cancer seem to get sick only after they've quit. Not sure if it's accurate yet though.

This is the best discussion I've seen so far on the subject. Ignoring the bait style title (smoking is good for you!) the main thread contributor strikes down many studies on smoking with some sound points.

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/

>>8086744
Pretty much this. I'm dairy free as it doesn't suit me, eat lots of veggies, sometimes have veg-only meals, but meat is fucking delicious as anon said.

And I believe my body wants meat. I was near-vegan for a couple of years and didn't do well on it. I was slim, exercising a lot, but had little real strength, and stamina. Eating some meat, I'm stronger and have better stamina.

This is one person's experience, so it ain't science, but what if it indicates something else is going on? There's a growing understanding of how people have different physiologies which respond differently to medications. Why not food also? It could be possible that some people get on better with a veggie diet and some with meat, because of their genetics and physiology. The important thing then, until there is a way of testing for these types, is to learn to listen to what your body wants.

>>8087399
>but the question is should we?
Yes.
Deep down any moral concerns we might have should be resolved trough nutrition, not capitalism.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_Windows Phone_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_imagesWUN4NMSN.jpg (13KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 259x194px

>>8087989
wat

>>8080161
If they claim it's healthier, that's simply anti-scientific. Veganism can be done with supplementation to fulfill nutrient requirements. If you have people like freelee the banana girl, they get too much fucking potassium. But overall, veganism is just stupid.

I see Richard is in this thread

I was a healthy eating omnivore up until about 2-3 months ago, until I transitioned to a still healthy eating vegetarian (except for the occasional seafood) and I don't feel very different, desu. I ate great before. The only really great major difference is that pooping is SO much better. Seriously, w/o meat, I'm regular as fuck. I watch my dad who eats meat everyday either be constipated or have diarrhea on a weekly basis. It has been such a huge difference. I seriously used to take forever in the bathroom, but I'm in and fucking out now.

>life extension
http://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2006/1/awsi/Page-01
>"Two studies of people who consumed very little meat showed an average life-span increase of 3.6 years."
Not fucking bad. I also weightlift and run a lot and I've not been affected in the slightest. Gains come easier if anything.

>>8088069
Capitalism is often a race to the bottom, with occasional huge quality boosts from new technology(Example: Artificial nitrogen fertilizer)
I.E http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/ A 5-40% loss for spesific vitamins and minerals. This 5-40% loss will then materialize in livestock, since those have to eat those lessened plants. So poultry, beef, farmed fish and pigs will be less nutritions.
But: We often eat plants for 1-3 specific groups of vitamins, so a crop losing 40% of something we don't eat it for, is whatever. The average is also low, meaning very few plants experience more than a 5-10% loss for special vitamins.

Now, this stuff is also common in feudal agriculture, because they didn't know better. But we know about soil erosion, crop rotation, soil nutrition, and all that.
We KNOW we are degrading soil quality, damaging our nutrition base, and in the long term ruining what is accurate of our food guidelines.
We also know that our livestock needs sunlight for a lot of the same reasons humans do, with roughly the same benefits.
We also know that deforestation is a gigantic problem, because its so hard.
We also know that weeds and grass has very large nutrition profiles, which means we want livestock to eat weeds.

File: .jpg (13KB, 401x301px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 401x301px

>>8080161
Scientific consensus is just as biased and corrupted as any other - it's just a lot of the time nobody cares if X is true or not, in which case the moronic majority will slow the inquiry down, until the bright ones get enough traction on their research.

Vegans are deluded fanatics. "Maybe if I don't eat animal products, It'll fix my life?". It's not about their or animals' health, oh no, those are the sacrifices. Sacrifices for the ego boost without the need to actually achieve anything.

>>8089317
Sounds kind of like the thought process for nonsmokers as well. "If I can't smoke it will help me avoid disease" when it's clear that smoking has merely been blamed for almost every other health problem (particularly lung problem) on a criminal level. It's like saying vaccines cause autism.

It makes you a giant pussy

Troll thread, but I have 10 years of being vegan (along with some heavy drinking, and smoking, and I fry like half the things I eat) and get regular check-ups, so far so good. No supplements.
>but what about protein, etc
Not on /sci/ bro, sorry. Anyhow I just have anecdote, which at least disproves the impossibility of it, or whatever.

>>8080181
Except it does work, hence the supplements.

Science:
>prescriptive
>descriptive

pick one

File: steak.jpg (29KB, 460x287px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 460x287px

>>8080161
Its bullshit because I fucking love meat. Mmmm look at that steak boi

>>8086781
I personally never medicated myself for a cold - it just went away after few days.

>>8087955
What's the benefit of smoking?

I can tell for sure there are some cons:
- impairs attention
- stresses you out ( compared to a non smoker even after you intake nicotine your stress level is still higher than a non smoker - you just relieve the very high stress level caused by desire of nicotine )
- you smell badly
- tooth decay
- lung damaging

I used to smoke allot - then quit cold turkey without experiencing any side effects - yes 0 side effects but instead I experienced improved attention, an overall well-being, around 1 - 2 weeks after I vividly experienced an intense sense of smell and taste - it just returned to normal as it was before smoking ( which I have long forgotten )

Again other than social brainwashing I - which brought the delusional idea that I need it because I feel relaxed there was no real benefit.

>>8090916
>Vegan for a year here. My LDL cholesterol went down by almost 50, triglycerides and HDL all looking great. Don't even watch my diet that much, I drink beer frequently on the weekends and have been pigging out on ben and jerry's vegan ice cream since it came out. Also lost 30 lbs during that time.

>>8080161
I've been vegan for the last 10 years.
Parents, I'm 22 now and I just never dropped the habit.

When I go to the store, I just skip the meat/dairy section. I still eat pizza, pasta and burgers. I'm a good cook though so I know what I need to make.

Im not all emotional about it though. If I go to a friends house and they serve me tacos or something, I'll eat it. If my vegan GF orders something and they forget to take the cheese out, I'll eat it.

>>8091954
cont.
I thought I'd get a b12 deficiency, but doctor said I was above average levels. Must be all the mushrooms or something.

>>8080161
The consensus is you need real protein. Mankind was made to eat meat. Vegans are just hipster faggots.

>>8091954
>Im not all emotional about it though. If I go to a friends house and they serve me tacos or something, I'll eat it.
Great for you, but from my perspective that's a silly generalization - I'm vegetarian and don't give a fuck what you eat but my refusal to eat meat isn't emotional.

Of course, this is because it's not a "habit" to me, nor is it ethical, I ate meat for 17 years and gagged on a daily basis on fat and textural inconsistencies in flesh. Since giving it up, I've tried to force-feed myself meat when receiving a wrong order and become immensely grossed out by the texture that is now even more foreign to me.

I don't understand how people can rationalize eating meat after watching this movie. Seriously, if you eat meat and watch this you are a sociopath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEliPlTqkEk

>>8091965
Just remembering all the times my girlfriend teared up because she found out her favorite restaurant uses lard for the fries or something. I wasn't trying to generalize all vegetarians/vegans.

I dont care what anyone eats

>>8091849
>what are the benefits of smoking?

Simple: protection against neurological disorders like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, as well as increased focus and thought.

>- impairs attention

This is false, I have no clue where you got this from. Nicotine and other ingredients boost thought and focus of anything.

>- stresses you out ( compared to a non smoker even after you intake nicotine your stress level is still higher than a non smoker - you just relieve the very high stress level caused by desire of nicotine )

This is a myth. It doesn't stress you out between cravings, you just don't feel as focused without it.

>- you smell badly

Subjective.

>- tooth decay

If you do a lot or take care of your teeth (like most smoking celebrities do) you can avoid it

>- lung damaging

This isn't true based on the links I posted on this thread that prove that smoking isn't bad for you. Some people have genetic predispositions to lung damage, and other cases involve asbestos, radon, radiation, air pollution (which causes 30% of all lung cancers) hell some studies say that smoking can protect against these things.

File: brainEEG.jpg (75KB, 675x321px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 675x321px

>>8092122
I was under the impression that nicotine lowers brain activity. The focus is just placebo?

>>8092135
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-a-nicotine-patch-make-you-smarter-excerpt/

>>8092143
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-a-nicotine-patch-make-you-smarter-excerpt/
Sounds good to me.
Where can I buy nicotine patches/gum?

>>8092151
I dunno, drug/grocery store maybe?

>>8092184
well yeah, was hoping for some obscure brand website thats cheap

companies like niccorette are expensive, and thats what stores carry

>>8092122
Your education seems to be based on reading labels that you get at supermarkets, I have no comment - keep damaging your brain and health.

I don't need an American to brainwash me about smoking being good - I've already went trough biology and it was presented to me trough standard model why and how it is harmful.

Web articles hold no value, studies can be flawed - read about Edward Bernays.

>>8092480
>Your education seems to be based on reading labels that you get at supermarkets, I have no comment - keep damaging your brain and health.

Are you serious? I'm basing it on articles and pieces discussing the validity of scientific evidence. The links I've posted in this thread about smoking point out flaws in major anti-smoking studies and studies carried out by the WHO and EPA- two of the biggest groups against smoking.

>I don't need an American to brainwash me about smoking being good - I've already went trough biology and it was presented to me trough standard model why and how it is harmful.

So you just instantly believe what your schooling tells you without considering other possibilities? These standards are likely influenced by the studies I mentioned that are being picked apart.

>Web articles hold no value, studies can be flawed - read about Edward Bernays.

I will look into Bernays, but web articles can hold value of their information is accurate or reasonable enough, and whole studies can be flawed, that can also be said about studies that say smoking is harmful to health as well. Like this one.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html

>>8092497
>carried out by the WHO and EPA- two of the biggest groups against smoking
WHO and EPA isn't particularly against smoking. Especially when WHO is just a UN puppet organization leeching of most larger Universities research publishing.

Then we termology. So far, nicotine plasters isn't "smoking". Neither is "vaping".
Then there is the issue of withdrawal, which only seem to affect heavy smokers.
So basically:
-Tobacco is literally killing you via the lungs
-Most benefits seem to come from the nicotine anyhow, so it could be replaced with plasters or vaping or snus.

>>8092520
>WHO and EPA isn't particularly against smoking.

Then how do ou explain their shit studies against smoking and secondhand smoke? The EPA's secondhand smoke study was thrown out of court back in the 90's.

>tobacco kills you via the lungs

I'm sorry but I have a hard time it can kill you in any fashion with a few unique exceptions. The links I've posted explain how smoking actually effects the body and how flaws these studies actually are.

>>8092546
>Then how do ou explain their shit studies against smoking and secondhand smoke?
Because WHO is WHO. Its a UN puppet organization. They barely do stuff on their own, they just find cool studies and push them. They aren't that different from IMF.

>The links I've posted explain
Again: Go fuck yourself.
Heavy to moderate smoking > Drastically reduced breath capacity > Long term damage

>>8080161
A diet that relies on suppliments to substitute for shortcomings in personal taste is a terrible diet. There's a reason we have serrated and flat teeth.

>>8080511
The someone kill me now.
>Be a omnivore
>Enjoy a healthy diet of meat and plant material
>Go out for a hamburger
>YOU'VE ENTERED A BURGER FREE ZONE
>Get pointed at laughed at by slimy vegans
>Stigmatized for doing what's natural
Kill me now.

>>8080873
>Veganism is about life causing the less suffering to other life forms as you can.
By that logic they should tell various wild predators to stop killing all those poor herbivores they make suffer (no matter how brief) so they can survive.

>>8092555
>Because WHO is WHO. Its a UN puppet organization. They barely do stuff on their own, they just find cool studies and push them. They aren't that different from IMF.

Then they probably cherry pick studies to their benefit. The EPA has done this as well.

>Again: Go fuck yourself. Heavy to moderate smoking > Drastically reduced breath capacity > Long term damage

Alright. Even if you do believe this and continue to believe it. It still doesn't justify smoking bans on the grounds that secondhand smoke is bullshit created to convince other people to not tolerate smoking in their presence.

>>8092564
I don't imagine voicing your inane fears of an inverted world gave you the insight to wonder what a pain in the ass it is to be vegetarian in most areas.

Not that I'm complaining, I just find your whining to be surprisingly shallow.

>>8092569
>>By that logic they should tell various wild predators to stop killing all those poor herbivores they make suffer (no matter how brief) so they can survive.
the logic is >less. not stopping all suffering. especially when we can help it.

>>8092569
By that logic there's nothing morally wrong with me kicking a dog, but any sane person would think I'm an asshole for doing it.

>>8080229
/thread

We evolved BECAUSE of meat. You will slowly die if you don't get b12 from MEAT. Not all essential amino acids are contained in greens.

It's not natural, not healthy and will eventually kill you.

>>8094321
lol i can use google to find countless examples of studies of vegetarians having slightly longer lifespans, and only a handful of counter claims similar in size to the pro-smoker studies.

by the way, vitamins are easy to get if you are smart enough to research what you actually need to survive. b12 is in animal byproducts so your argument applies more to vegans than vegetarians, but for what it's worth, we've adding it to cereal across the world for you meat-eaters too.

also kek at actually using the word "natural" as if it has a well-defined meaning

thanks for your rhetorical input, here's a rhetorical point back at you: living will eventually kill you

>>8094395
>living will eventually kill you
No living is not something that kills. It's the method how life is preserved that is flawed.

File: 1419378146923.jpg (92KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x667px

There is no prescription diet that universally applies to all humans

Look at the native tribes in the Arctic, they can consume nothing but red meat and blubber for months without serious health problems. And that only took a few thousand years to occur.

Groups are genetically different due to the different pressures on the essential components of their survival e.g. dietary needs based on location and available food resources.

Some people respond to meat diets better than others. It often comes down to the cellular biology of the individual.

>>8094566
>without serious health problems.
But anon, child mortality and low life expectancy IS serious health problems

>>8094573
They are

You are implying that those factors are a direct result of diet.

Can you demonstrate that?

>>8094488
breathing kills you

>>8094577
>You are implying that those factors are a direct result of diet.
Even if you Occam Razor the thing, you get something like "diet is a contributing factor alongside life style, environmental exposure, diet cycle, standard of health care, and sterility during important rites of life"

There is a good chance they aren't eating enough C vitamin, but thats always a non issue so long its not malnutrition levels.

>>8092569
Do you hold wild animals to the same moral standards as human beings?

>>8094580
DUDE

>>8094395
>lol i can use google to find countless examples of studies of vegetarians having slightly longer lifespans, and only a handful of counter claims similar in size to the pro-smoker studies.

So to you it's the majority of claims that matter, not the quality of science? Plenty of centennials smoke.

Is /sci/ anti-smoking because they all have weak lungs or something?

>>8094488
Useless pedantic bullshit is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Will eating meat prevent aging? Nope. Does lack of eating meat accelerate aging? Nope.

>>8094778
Majority of studies with any semblance of quality. You have outliers. The rest of your post is rhetoric.

>>8094676
"lol i bet vegans do"

It's useless rhetoric. Pointless to respond to people who have no actual argument.

>>8094809
>Majority of studies with any semblance of quality. You have outliers. The rest of your post is rhetoric.

If you actually went through this shut you'd realize you're wrong

>majority of studies

Many of these studies are of low quality and it doesn't take a genius to figure his out. They've been taken apart by people far smarter than you.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
http://sci.med.diseases.cancer.narkive.com/6qNYNZIZ/the-dishonesty-of-antismoking
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

What's obviously worse is using "secondhand smoke" as an excuse to create widespread bans.

This isn't rhetoric at this point, it's calling out faulty science.

The outliers you speak of are supported by the evidence here >>8087955 where there are detailed descriptions and debunking of major studies cited by people who do not know any better. Do I have to sum up the results from the link posted here >>8087955 as well?

>>8082829
I think it may be referring to people claiming that radiation from power lines causes cancer or headaches, some bullshit like that.

>>8094943
Hey, look at that, one of those links even has sources! If you don't mind I'll ignore the fucking forum post you quoted twice.

I'll retract my comparison to pro-smoker studies. I'd be more interested if you had anything to contribute to the vegan/vegetarian argument that you have been trying so hard to change the subject from. There is a smoking thread already. This was one of four issues I raised with a post suggesting meat is vital, and you've only attacked an off-hand comparison that says nothing about the studies relating to meat.

>>8095064
>If you don't mind I'll ignore the fucking forum post you quoted twice.

Forum post discusses studies too, dude.

>I'll retract my comparison to pro-smoker studies. I'd be more interested if you had anything to contribute to the vegan/vegetarian argument

I was simply pointing out the faulty comparison as smoking is often a scapegoat for the multitude of health issues it doesn't actually play a role in. I don't have anything to say about the vegan matter so I guess I'm done here.

>>8091969
Kill yourself

>>8080908
Sorry for being ignorant, but where is it stored?

>>8095077

Well, for lack of better, kind stranger, receive my gratitude for pointing out those studies.

>>8095519
Part 1
>1. Dogs exposed to radon or radon+smoke: 5% of smoking dogs and 37% of non-smoking dogs got lung cancers. http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-3#entry387616
>2. Massive National Cancer Institute sponsored experiments that backfired terribly, setting back the NCI's workplace smoking bans agenda for more than a decade. http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-4#entry387824
>3. The crowning experiments of six decades of antismoking "science", the pinnacle (2004, 2005) -- again backfired badly, as they always do -- at the end, more than twice as many smoking animals alive than non-smoking ones. http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-6#entry388110
>4. Self-medication with tobacco http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-8#entry388489
>5. Common genes for lung cancer & smoking (Fisher suspected this to be the case in 1950s, he also suggested self-medication possibility, see page 163, where he compares taking cigarettes away from some poor chap to taking the walking stick from a blind man.[pdf]) http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-9#entry388507
>6. Hazards of quitting (triggers lung cancers in animal experiments) http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-10#entry388800
>7. Emphysema/COPD - smoking protective rather than cause http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-11#entry389183
>8. How does antismoking "science" lie with stats (or how to scientifically "prove" that -- Prozac causes depression -- using the master method of antismoking "science") http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-13#entry389448
>9. Heart attacks from SHS myths (a 'friend saying Boo' is more "hazardous" for your heart than SHS) http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-13#entry389471

>>8095519
>>8095617
>10. Glycotoxins/AGE in tobacco smoke -- backfires badly http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/?view=findpost&p=389528
>11. Smoking protects against cancers (reversal of values in cancer state and another common sleight of hand), Smoking vs Caloric Restrictions (and on fundamental wrong-headedness of C.R.) http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/?view=findpost&p=389609
>12. More on anti-carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and how to translate Orwellian antismoking "science" to real science http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-13#entry389717
>14. Smoking and diabetes, insulin sensitivity -- another "proof" backfires http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/?view=findpost&p=390153
>15. How to prove that 'Lifting weights is harmful for muscles' - pinhole vision sleight of hand of antismoking "science" illustrated http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38868&view=findpost&p=390233
>16. Oxidative stress, breast cancer, "randomizing non-randomized variables" sleight of hand -- more antismoking junk science claims turned upside-down by facts of hard science http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-16#entry390790
>17. Can one replicate the health benefits of tobacco smoke (the short list given) using supplements and pharmaceuticals? Even if it were possible, can one do it for < $1 day (cost for a pack of roll-your-own cigarettes with natural, additive free tobacco) http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38868&view=findpost&p=389478
>18. Who knows more about biochemistry of life and its molecular engineering -- one little cell in your little toe or all the biochemists and molecular biologists in the world taken together? Is "Sickness Industry" good for your health http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38868&view=findpost&p=389478

why are there pro-smoking retards on this board

is this like the flat-earth meme where you pretend to believe something universally agreed against online, just to improve your debate and argumentative skills?

>>8095623
No. The information is pretty clear, at least to me. It's clear that there are other more complex explanations regarding smoking.

>is this like the flat-earth meme where you pretend to believe something universally agreed against online, just to improve your debate and argumentative skills?

I have no idea what that means.

>>8095644
can you explain why such a large fraction of people who inhale smoke into their lungs die of lung cancer

>>8095654
Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Plenty of nonsmokers also get lung cancer. It's genetics, it's radon, it's plenty of other things and factors involved. Combining smoking with breathing in. Asbestos fibers isn't a good idea either.

It's not smoking that's the cause or the controbuting factor. That'd be ridiculous. Plenty of people smoked back in the day.

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

It's exactly like saying "plenty of kids get vaccinated and more kids these days have autism. So vaccinations cause autism"

>>8095665
oh god it's this guy again

get out smoking apologist
nicotine causes cancer
nitrosamines cause cancer
end of story

>>8095668
Right. Global warming is totally real too. Even though they said it was global cooling back in the day.

Accept it: these fucks have no idea what they're doing.

>>8095665
>Plenty of nonsmokers also get lung cancer
not really, especially not compared to smokers.
> Plenty of people smoked back in the day.
and plenty of people died?
>plenty of kids get vaccinated and more kids these days have autism. So vaccinations cause autism"
you know I'd expect you to believe that vaccines cause autism

I mean I know I'm getting baited but just on the off chance this is genuine this is some hysterical shit

do you smoke? and if you don't, then why not? buncha positives!

>>8095672
>global warming is fake
fuck why did i start responding now i feel retarded for falling for it

>>8095672
>Even though they said it was global cooling back in the day.
MMMMMULTI-BAIT

>>8095644
>muh complexities
what you mean is that we haven't solved the interactions that make up the human body - wow how meaningful! Thank you for teaching us so much!!!

Barring neurotoxins and the like there are no simple mechanisms that fully explain biological phenomenon. Does that imply statistical evidence of exposure combined with presumptive mechanistic data doesn't allow a conclusion to be drawn? Why the fuck do you believe in evolution ? Why do you believe in plate tectonics?

>>8095672
>these fucks
Man back to your containment board. Stay there. Vote for Trump. We don't want you; this was a good thread before you showed up.

>>8094943
>What's obviously worse is using "secondhand smoke" as an excuse to create widespread bans.
If my Googlefu was better, I would gather images on how shit looked like in the 60s and around. How debate studios was down smoked talking apartments.
"Second hand smoking" isn't that somebody is just puffing. Second hand smoking is a poorly/mediocrerly ventilated area, several smokers, and other people. Second hand smoking is literal smoke clouds indoors, in common use areas.
Now, because of legal changes, its actually hard to find places with second hand smoking. Usually they are segregated off to a outdoor area, or a external pavilion with a separate ventilation.

Which means: There isn't any real second hand smoking left. And WHO wants to deal with nigger africa building their new cool nations. They want them to avoid having smoke houses in the first place, because thats what WHO do.
And while WHO might be retarded and a bunch of literal shills, they still get funding, and do their job however poorly.

>>8095674
>not really, especially not compared to smokers.

Wrong

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2013/11/15/a-medical-mystery-why-is-lung-cancer-rising-among-nonsmoking-women
http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20150910/nonsmokers-account-for-rising-proportion-of-lung-cancer-cases-studies-find

>and plenty of people died?

YES. Plenty people died, but it isn't attributable to smoking. Fucking goddamn.maybe if the person also breathed in a ton of asbestos. But smoking alone? No.

>you know I'd expect you to believe that vaccines cause autism

Don't twist my words. I was comparing vaccine hysteria to smoking hysteria.

>I mean I know I'm getting baited but just on the off chance this is genuine this is some hysterical shit

This isn't bait, it's a counterpoint to your narrow worldview.

>do you smoke? and if you don't, then why not? buncha positives!

It's a very costly habit, unfortunately. Especially due to all of the sin taxes. Besides, nonsmokers can defend smoking.

>>8095680
If you're going to ignore the research on smoking in this thread then I don't know what else to say to you.

>>8095703
There was never really any secondhand smoke to begin with though. The smoke is diluted so much by the user's lungs that it isn't the same thing. The arguments and studies behind secondhand smoke are weak and dishonest. There was never a solid link between SHS and diseases, the smell can just be overpowering to those who don't smoke.

>>8095715
i've read most of the research cited in the gen. surg. white paper.

half of your links are to vague references to particular papers not directly linked to. They are garbage posts made by someone who for the most part sounds insane.

>>8095718
>The smoke is diluted so much by the user's lungs that it isn't the same thing.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
DID YOU NEVER HOTBOX BRO
FUCKING BRAINLET

>>8095706
>wrong
haha
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20150910/nonsmokers-account-for-rising-proportion-of-lung-cancer-cases-studies-find
>n one study, British researchers found that over seven years the proportion of U.K. never-smokers with non-small cell lung cancer jumped from 13 percent to 28 percent.
golly jee whiz, one fourth of everyone with lung cancer didnt smoke!
That means.... 3 fourths of everyone with lung cancer smoked!
and since about 20% of people smoke, you'd think smoking might be responsible if the 1/5 of the people in the US who smoke are responsible for 3/4 of lung cancer

>>8095740
Yeah well this >>8081024 talks a bit about the surgeon general's (C Everett Koop) mistakes regarding the matter. This link has similar allegations against William H Steward.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/SG8.htm
https://www.sott.net/article/229156-Lies-Damned-Lies-400000-Smoking-related-Deaths-Cooking-the-Data-in-the-Fascists-Anti-Smoking-Crusade

He only sounds insane because he goes against the mainstream. The above two links also explain the shit behind smoking studies.

>>8095745
There's still no evidence of secondhand smoke hurting anyone who wasn't already a health wreck. Normal, average people aren't harmed by secondhand smoke.

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

>>8095617
>>8095620
Thank You.
Indeed, as old tale goes - when sheeps got hoarded, it's for milking, sometimes to cut wool off, ultimately for slaughter.

>>8095881
Too bad no one else is buying into it and sticking with what their daddy the surgeon general tells them.

>>8095718
Listen to your argument
>The smoke(of single smoker:) is diluted so much by the user's lungs that it isn't the same thing
Which essentially means
>Single smoker can not create short time second hand smoke
Which is sorta true
A single smoker, in a large space, can't create second hand smoking.
A single smoker, with enough time, in a non ventilated area can however.
Lots of smokers in a area that isn't super ventilated, will.

The fact is: If you are smelling tobacco, you are "smoking". You are inhaling chemicals you react to.

>>8096307
Well, the point I'm trying to make is that enough studies have shown that in its diluted form it isn't a health risk. Me asserting that it doesn't exist is more me trying to explain that it isn't the the health risk people make it out to be.

>The fact is: If you are smelling tobacco, you are "smoking". You are inhaling chemicals you react to.

I suppose that's true but that doesn't make it dangerous or hazardous to health, that'd be bullshit. If you're seriously saying that breathing in secondhand smoke is the same thing as smoking then tha really isn't true. Smokers directly inhale plant matter and burnt paper. They don't blow all of that out for others to smell.

http://www.smokescreens.org/chemistry.htm
http://www.smokescreens.org/secondhand-smoke-firsthand-lies/

>>8096742
Smell remains isn't "second hand smoking" anon. A smog filled locale is.

>Thread about veganism completely morphs into thread about smoking

>>8096754
Okay, but studies have shown that people still haven't gotten sick from the "smog filled locale" you're describing. And "smog filled locale" areas are usually bars, not workplaces, grocery stores, or other areas that have also enforced a ban.

>>8096797
Smog filled bars have not existed for almost 30-40 years anon. There is a reason we don't talk about them anymore.

>>8096807
Well, if you see smog filled bars as the problem, why justify banning it in locations that aren't smog filled (I.e. almost every place that wasn't a bar back on the day)?

>>8096811
>why justify banning it in locations that aren't smog filled
Because they was.

>>8096795
Thread was always shit, what's to derail? Obvious troll OP, dull topic with little potential for scientific discussion, nobody is losing sleep over this change of topic. Despite that /sci/ will never have consensus, my thoughts are that I know some long-term vegans and they are fine and healthy.

Good talk!

>>8096953
I kind of doubt that, compared to a bar, a workplace or office is just as smog filled.

The health risks from secondhand smoke are fabricated anyhow.

>>8096795
It only derailed because someone made a useless comparison about smoking, when everyone should know by now that it's not what the government makes it out to be. Hilariously enough when >>8095850 was posted, people immediately went silent because the information in the links was true and therefore not worth going up against.

>>8097069
Of course they are, how are their B12 levels? Unless they take supplements which make them from animals kek

File: marcuspatrick99.jpg (36KB, 490x694px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 490x694px

>>8097647
> I am now a Raw Vegan for 3 years 100% plant based and I have been a Vegan for 12 years.

Do a little research on vegan athletes and surprise yourself on how your idea of nutrition is lacking. [spoiler]and don't worry about feeling gay, they're not going to sleep with your stinky meat-and-dairy-sweat self[/spoiler]

Bad thread is bad.

>>8097647
Vitamin B12 supplements are made from bacterias m8. Anyway, legend has it that the livestock is also fed B12 supplements to fulfil the requirements. If it's true, I'd rather take that shit directly.

>>8080161
It's a debunked meme diet
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html
>>8080200
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html

>>8087119
I fail to see how it's not when many studies are discussed in that thread and then promptly shit on for being bad studies. It's like claiming something cures cancer or causes it by looking at mice/rat tumor examples. This shit NEVER flies anywhere else, it only seems to be acceptable to be a bullshitter if you're against smoking or supporting global warming/anthropogenic climate change. I also posted other sources from the CATO institute and from Ray Johnstone but nobody had the balls to even reply at that point.

>>8080209
>believe the scientific consensus
... as opposed to the idiotic contrarian anti-scientific consensus?
Yes, that would be the wiser choice.

File: worthless-and-weak.jpg (18KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 250x250px

>>8080237
>my personal opinion
L0L

>>8081197
>anecdotal evidence
>all vegans must be sick and weak
what is statistics

As a diet, it's probably healthier.

As a philosophy.... Fuck philosophy, hail science.

>>8092564
F
A P P E A L T O N A T U R E
L
L
A
C
Y

>>8098568
The scientific consensus is a very dangerous thing. It turns scientific evidence into scientific dogma and religion. Being a contrarian is necessary to find out if the opposing side has any validity (and this may be surprising to you, but it does, in fact, have validity).

File: Price_Book.png (376KB, 369x571px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 369x571px

>>8080161

http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/25/modern-western-nutrition-is-deep-in-the-dark-ages-the-catastrophe-modern-science/

>>8099490
White flour is literally evil because of how the process robs it from its shells. Which also means no sour dough.
I am not sure what sugar loses from being bleached, or being robbed from the cane.

Bonus point: Citric acid in everything because its a preservative.

>>8099490
>The common food staples necessary for good health are in large part made up of natural, animal-based foods

vegans BTFO

>>8080161
Mental ilness

File: logical fallacies.jpg (1011KB, 2977x2105px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 2977x2105px

>this thread

>>8081029
Top kek

>>8080161
https://examine.com/faq/what-beneficial-compounds-are-primarily-found-in-animal-products/

I am a vegan and I really like it.
I don't take supplements, except for normal multivitamins that the average adult eats (those gummy ones.) I am healthy, happy, and I feel like I am making some sort of difference.

>>8102529
Are they made out the gelatin, the gummies, retard.

>>8101061
Yeah, people against smoking and meat are really losing their marbles.

Roughly 40% of the US population is vitamin B12 deficient. B12 is also easy to get from not only eating fish, but eating anything with a lot of yeast or B12 fortified foods. Plant based diet is better than the conventional american diet as far as resource use and environmental impact. Empirical data overwhelmingly supports that.

Can we start having smoking generals on /sci/ to contain this debate. It derails so many otherwise interesting threads.

>>8102727
And improve the quality of /sci/? Absolutely not, we like being trash.

>>8102727
That'd actually be better.

>>8095740
It's from longecity, for posterity's sake, everyone on that board is fundamentally flawed.

could be the nsi-189 and cerebrolysin (pig brains) that they inject.

File: Environment Systems and Decisions, March 2016, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 92-103.png (104KB, 738x981px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 738x981px

>>8102720
>Plant based diet is better than the conventional american diet as far as resource use and environmental impact.

False!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214130727.htm

>Eating lettuce is 'over three times worse' in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon

vegans BTFO, again

>>8103138
You can't just dismiss a claim due to the source of said claim. Can you actually refute the evidence or not?

>>8080161
My own personal knowledge on the topic is that veganism is generally dangerous to your health, even with the best supplements and planning.

>>8094566
Actually, that's true for anyone. A meat-only diet is quite healthy for anyone. You just need to eat non-traditional meats, like the kidneys, liver, brain, etc.

>>8095851
Fuck, even Penn and Teller said that they were wrong on this point.

>>8103260
>Only vegans eat lettuce, and vegans on average eat more lettuce than non-vegans because I can't imagine plants other than lettuce
You're good at this.

>>8102720
>B12 is also easy to get from not only eating fish
This being your first example implies, at least to the uninformed readers, vegans eat fish. That's called pesco-vegetarianism, and is considered "semi-vegetarian". Vegan is the most strict definition. It's annoying as shit as a vegetarian that no one understands the different terms.

To add something other than debate, here's a tip for all of you. Don't call your girlfriend a ovo-lacto-sperma vegetarian. Was not well-received.

>>8103379
>lettuce
>You're good at this.

the study, on which that article is based, has compared entire diets patterns; since you don't know what they're talking about, I'm giving you a hint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet#United_States_Department_of_Agriculture

the highlight on "lettuce over bacon" was made just for clickbait purposes; actually, I don't think that you have clicked to read the article; you also probably don't understand a word of the abstract of that study, and I bet you have not read >>8099490 too

I feel sorry for you

no, wait
I don't, ah ah

>>8103412
Don't quote nothing but the clickbait summary if you expect others to look at your source. You set me up expecting to waste my fucking time with an idiotic study. It's interesting and I'll rescind my bitching, but it's one study. Corroboration would be nice.

The other link you referenced was filled with too much rhetoric and back-to-back fallacious reasoning for me, but perhaps that's the fault of the article.

I'll admit I'm not incredibly interested in the debate because I'm not in it for environmentalism, ethics, health, or diet. Nor do I recommend my lifestyle to others.

>>8103373
They were coaxed into saying it was wrong for a variety of reasons, among them:

1.) the fact that Steve Milloy was a source they used in their episode, who was discredited for taking money from the tobacco companies not log after (despite the fact that his information and argument matters FAR more than who he takes money from).

2.) Someone tried to call them out at a Q&A session, and a main criticism of the show was that the risk ratio is supposed to be 1 or point one (when it's actually 2 or 3, or point five). This is horseshit on the part of the critics, because risk ratios should be the latter numbers, not the pussified former (seriously, .1?). People claim the 2-3/.5 risk ratio is pushed by tobacco companies or fringe epidemiologists but there is no evidence of this.

Also, just because one person admits they're wrong isn't the end all be all of SHS.

>>8080161
Why do you mean by the scientific consensus?

>>8080161
It's an Earth-unfriendly lifestyle. When i was vegan i had to eat ALOT throughout the day. I mean 4+meals

>>8080223
Is your sarcasm muscle underdeveloped??

>>8104186
Calories is calories anon. Just because you eat a lot of lettuce, doesn't mean its how you would do the diet.

>>8103138
>longecity
>everyone on that board is fundamentally flawed

Funny, everyone attacked the pro-smoking guy on that board with shitty studies.

Just saying.