Philosophical Vegan Forum

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:55 pm I'll have to read this debate from the start, but at least people are talking about Libertarianism.
I mean, the American President is a reality star, Democrats don't seem to have a clear message about anything without infighting, but my party are the "crazy" ones.

Sadly the Libertarian party is the second best party available (not that they have any real influence). And most of them lack intellect. Excluding you, PsYcHo. ;;))

PsYcHo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:55 pm I'll have to read this debate from the start, but at least people are talking about Libertarianism.
I mean, the American President is a reality star, Democrats don't seem to have a clear message about anything without infighting, but my party are the "crazy" ones.

Good to have you back, I was afraid our token libertarian had fled the forum.

We were just discussing the forefather of your ideology.

Ideology isn't what I'd consider my political leanings: more of a semi strict adherence to individual liberty.
Live and let live, and let morality be your guide. I'll make an effort to join this discussion, my insane workload permitting.

@Lay Vegan did you watch the debate yet

@Red Unfortunately, I've been swamped with work and haven't been able to watch it in its entirety. Is there a written format of the debate available online?

My initial thoughts are that Katz is correct. The notion that there's an 'optimal diet' that all people have evolved to eat is simply not supported by nutrition science. Rather, the consensus appears to be that a wide range of diets can benefit individuals, and that people should eat a diet that approximates to their body's nutrient needs. The debate proposition is therefore moot and completely unreasonable to argue against. There isn't even a singular vegan or vegetarian diet. Likewise there isn't a single omnivorous diet. The research as a whole indicates that well balanced vegetarian diets are healthy and suitable for all stages of life. Also, vegetarians may have some health advantages regarding chronic disease (namely hypertension and diabetes).

Tiecholz's spiel at the beginning is dishonest and a little annoying. Sure, the field as a whole suffers from the same problem that most soft sciences do, but RCT's aren't exactly practical for most important nutrition questions. We can't randomize a group of children into 2 separate groups, lock them in a room, and feed them different diets to observe how diseases develop. Yes, we do have to rely on observational studies and even food surveys.

But the reality is that nutrition research has been and continues to be useful, specifically when looking at trends within large groups of studies that point in a common direction. We call these meta-analyses.

Also, her little comment about meat eating being a long tradition within human cultures was a super noob-level appeal to tradition fallacy. *facepalm*

I learned Forks Over Knives is the healthiest way for us, which can have us avoid many real problems to health. I am fine continuing with almost all whole-food all from just plants, and I don't even include mushrooms which are not. I would never believe that I was just lucky, belonging to the right population, to benefit, just like other choices for what is better, I am not good with lucky shots, and I would not choose for that basis.

I am anarchistic. While I know anarchists in general I find in communication are not sensitive to environmental issues and have no sensitivity to being vegan, there are online groups of vegan anarchists who are different.

My understanding of keto (ketosis) is that it is relatively unproven in comparison to the good results doctors know about from studies with whole food plant-based ways of eating.

I see merit to anarchist points. Over time more corruption comes into governing bodies as happened enough in history, which gives an attraction to ambitious motives of any, and the founding framers of the Constitution knew about this, still trying to have the best document they could put forward with protections to the people. Those framers could not see a culture of people without any ruling over them though, this is a general bias. To have a government for people needing a government, if it is so, you need to have it with it consisting of people who need government. You logically have that, unless there is agreement that there are people who do not need government. And if there are people not needing it, they could have their society with agreed on rules and cooperate. There could be other ways to approach issues instead of an intervening government, that there would be dependence on, again, consisting of people much like them. What government can do right, when it does, people can do. I don't think it is good to live in very huge communities either, people can work well together in small communities. They can have institutions, without there being government for it. There can be rules, without any being a ruler.

FredVegrox wrote: ↑Thu Jun 15, 2023 9:48 am My understanding of keto (ketosis) is that it is relatively unproven in comparison to the good results doctors know about from studies with whole food plant-based ways of eating.

I see merit to anarchist points. Over time more corruption comes into governing bodies as happened enough in history, which gives an attraction to ambitious motives of any, and the founding framers of the Constitution knew about this, still trying to have the best document they could put forward with protections to the people. Those framers could not see a culture of people without any ruling over them though, this is a general bias. To have a government for people needing a government, if it is so, you need to have it with it consisting of people who need government. You logically have that, unless there is agreement that there are people who do not need government. And if there are people not needing it, they could have their society with agreed on rules and cooperate. There could be other ways to approach issues instead of an intervening government, that there would be dependence on, again, consisting of people much like them. What government can do right, when it does, people can do. I don't think it is good to live in very huge communities either, people can work well together in small communities. They can have institutions, without there being government for it. There can be rules, without any being a ruler.

I don't think the benefits that the proponents of keto diets are claiming are unproven, I think they are proven wrong to any reasonable person. Proponents of keto diets are claiming a keto diet can reverse type-2-diabetes. If that were true, how it is that if you got type-2-diabetes before the invention of the insulin, you had only months to live? Because keto diets were a standard treatment for type-2-diabetes before the insulin. Maybe they help a little if no insulin is available (obviously, they are counter-productive if taken together with insulin), but claiming they are better than insulin... I think it would require a conspiracy. For similar reasons, I think that what Neal Barnard is claiming would take a conspiracy to be true.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2023 11:30 amI don't think the benefits that the proponents of keto diets are claiming are unproven, I think they are proven wrong to any reasonable person. Proponents of keto diets are claiming a keto diet can reverse type-2-diabetes. If that were true, how it is that if you got type-2-diabetes before the invention of the insulin, you had only months to live? Because keto diets were a standard treatment for type-2-diabetes before the insulin. Maybe they help a little if no insulin is available (obviously, they are counter-productive if taken together with insulin), but claiming they are better than insulin... I think it would require a conspiracy. For similar reasons, I think that what Neal Barnard is claiming would take a conspiracy to be true.

I thought when I first saw you were quoting my whole post that maybe you were responding to the discussion for anarchism. I want to respond to you, but it is not clear to me exactly what you are saying. I do not personally believe keto, which I really see should be referred to as ketosis, which is what it is, starving the body of needed carbohydrates, is better for health. Claim I heard that it was had been from adherents' early observation of seeing some benefit. That really cannot last with longterm starvation of any kind, with not getting needed fiber and even some complete sugars and having inadequate vitamins. But your concluding statement is confusing. It would take a conspiracy for something to be true? What could that mean? Doctor Neal Barnard is promoting healthy eating with whole food from plants. Isn't he? That isn't making claims about a diet using ketosis.