4 ms·

> Side note: Why do we constantly cry about recommendations from the 1970s being different from today's recommendations? Because hardly anything in nutrition "

> Side note: Why do we constantly cry about recommendations from the 1970s being different from today's recommendations? Because hardly anything in nutrition "science" has proven to be predictive. It's all junk. Most of it intentional junk pushed by political and business interests. For example, "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." is just nonsense based on junk "science" funded by vegan/vegetarian aligned interest groups. I'm guessing with major multinational corporations peddling veganism, we'll get more junk nutrition science. Considering life expectancy, health and development has increased with more meat consumption. This is true of the countries with the highest life expectancy - japan, switzerland, spain, etc. Since we are omnivores, perhaps we should eat a variety of everything in moderation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
That is not a vegan take. I am not vegan. >perhaps we should eat a variety of everything in moderation. That's what the quote means?
- dotcommand 5y ago
  > That is not a vegan take. I am not vegan. Didn't say you were vegan. Just like mothers telling their children "eat your veggies" makes them vegan. But the prevalence of that saying today is due to the vegan lobby. > That's what the quote means? Nope. A balanced diet perhaps, but certainly not your quote. Your quote part of vegan propaganda. Sneakily get the naive to accept "mostly vegetables" and then "why not only vegetables". You see it everywhere on social media. It's a propaganda campaign funded by the largest corporations in the world and the vegan fanatics teaching kids/people a toxic and unnatural diet to humans.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    I disagree. I think it's helpful because many eat too much meat.
pessimizer 5y ago
> Since we are omnivores, perhaps we should eat a variety of everything in moderation. That's even worse. Moderation is meaningless except in retrospect - in this context it just means the correct amount. It's not even the moderation fallacy - if I eat from 1-3 hamburgers every day, moderation doesn't tell me that I should be eating 2 because it's in the middle. At least the "mostly plants" part of the yuppie diet cliché takes some sort of falsifiable stand. I can know for sure that I eat mostly plants, I can never know when I'm eating "moderately," or "not too much."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

That is not a vegan take. I am not vegan. >perhaps we should eat a variety of everything in moderation. That's what the quote means?

dotcommand 5y ago
> That is not a vegan take. I am not vegan. Didn't say you were vegan. Just like mothers telling their children "eat your veggies" makes them vegan. But the prevalence of that saying today is due to the vegan lobby. > That's what the quote means? Nope. A balanced diet perhaps, but certainly not your quote. Your quote part of vegan propaganda. Sneakily get the naive to accept "mostly vegetables" and then "why not only vegetables". You see it everywhere on social media. It's a propaganda campaign funded by the largest corporations in the world and the vegan fanatics teaching kids/people a toxic and unnatural diet to humans.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  I disagree. I think it's helpful because many eat too much meat.

pessimizer 5y ago

> Since we are omnivores, perhaps we should eat a variety of everything in moderation. That's even worse. Moderation is meaningless except in retrospect - in this context it just means the correct amount. It's not even the moderation fallacy - if I eat from 1-3 hamburgers every day, moderation doesn't tell me that I should be eating 2 because it's in the middle. At least the "mostly plants" part of the yuppie diet cliché takes some sort of falsifiable stand. I can know for sure that I eat mostly plants, I can never know when I'm eating "moderately," or "not too much."