Does anyone know MMM's stance on veganism?

[Hotstreak]

I also agree that no diet is harmless, but if you look back in the thread for the graph I posted, animals must eat cultivated crops to live (soy, corn, etc.), so by eating meat it's a "double whammy" in terms of killing the animal you eat as well as the animals in the crop fields. 

Your premise is wrong.  Animals do not need to eat cultivated crops to live.  They can be sustained with natural forage (especially ruminants).  If they needed mass produced soy or corn, where did the cows come from?  Did farmers invent them at the time of the beginning of the agricultural era, 10,000 years ago?

Honestly the kind of thinking reflected in this post seems like the very thing little_brown_dog is criticizing.  If you believe that line you typed, you drank a whole lot of the Kool-Aid.

[lifeanon269]

Yup, you heard that right. I think veganism as it is practiced by most people in western industrialized nations is hardly the moral highground that it is portrayed to be.

I would avoid making generalizations toward any group of people as it hardly lends itself well to making a valid point. You've essentially categorized all vegans as being "privileged, cultish, delusional and hypocritical" people. As you can read in this thread, there are many vegans that don't live "holier than thou" and don't look down on other meat eaters in any way. I am myself a vegan, however my wife is not. I don't think you'd find me marrying a person if I found her to be "morally deficient or barbaric" as you say. Most vegans were once non-vegans at one point in their life and so I think you'll find that most of them can relate well with those that still eat meat and likely are among many meat-eaters in their families, all of whom they still love dearly.

Also, I don't think most vegans feel that they live their lives without killing a single soul. Most vegans I've ever talked to are very rational people (you'd have to be to logically work through a decision that sees someone drastically alter their food choices as they do). As such, most vegans I've talked to acknowledge the fact that animals are still killed throughout the human food chain, whether you choose to eat plants or animals. However, as KelStache mentioned, eating animals in today's society is ultimately buying into a negative food production system that requires plant-based food to be consumed by other herbivores in an effort to produce animal based foods. While not all of that plant-based food need to be a cultivated crop, much of it in today's food system is. Even some grass-fed cattle are fed cultivated crop (grass, hay, corn, etc) during winter months to sustain them. This ultimately results in more killing, both deliberately (slaughter) and accidentally (poisoning, soil cultivation, etc). Most of the vegans I know acknowledge the killing that happens regardless of the food choice you make, but that they choose plant-based because when they're in a grocery store, they've decided that there is more deliberate killing that takes place down the meat aisle than down the produce aisle. While it would be extremely difficult to quantify every life lost it took to produce any given food, it is very apparent and more quantifiable if the decision is to eat meat. Unfortunately, humans have to eat, so there is no decision we can make that results in not producing food for the global human population.

Finally, if you going to attempt to make comparisons between either food product (plant-based and animal-based), you must compare apples to apples. I agree that it isn't always so simple as far as which is the better choice environmentally speaking. But, in general it is better when comparing diet choices to compare best practice with best practice. If one is going to go out of their way in search of the most environmentally sound meat, then why can't the same search be placed on finding the most environmentally sound plant-based foods? The end result being that when organic locally produced plant-based foods are compared with organic locally produced free-range animals, the plant-based sources will almost always be the better option environmentally speaking.

Obviously this is a choice for the individual to make. But, it is important for the individual to make an informed decision for themselves without letting emotional judgement toward any group of people get in the way. The world is becoming more and more urbanized which means backyard farming is becoming less of an option for people. Because it is an important decision for the individual to make, I don't see why it is that you feel the need to base your own decision off your own perceptions toward a group of individuals. Even if all vegans as a whole were "uppity snobs" that ultimately are making the right choice, shouldn't you base your decision for yourself, not based on whether or not that group is "uppity", but based on whether the choice itself is the right choice or not?

[little_brown_dog]

Former vegan now vegetarian here…

Wanted to weigh in on why I am no longer vegan for moral reasons....

Hi litte_brown_dog, I definitely applaud you for eating the way you feel comfortable with.  I'm not sure I'm a fan of your reasoning though, as most of your arguments surround what "most vegans" think or do, and this has not been my experience at all.  The vegans I know are very open to discussion on all of the topics you've listed, and basically sum it up as "doing their best".

It is totally cool that you disagree with those topics, but I don't understand why you would change your eating habits based on what other people who eat the same way might think or do?  You don't have to join vegan clubs, or even tell others that you're vegan in order to eat plant based.

I also agree that no diet is harmless, but if you look back in the thread for the graph I posted, animals must eat cultivated crops to live (soy, corn, etc.), so by eating meat it's a "double whammy" in terms of killing the animal you eat as well as the animals in the crop fields. 

Hopefully this doesn't come off poorly, I just don't see any similarities between what you claim 'most vegans' are like, and myself & the people I know who are vegan.

Nothing came across wrong at all, your post is very thoughtful and honestly sounds about where my line of thinking was a few years ago when I was vegan.
I’ll try to hit your points individually to better explain my reasoning. I realize my ideas are a little unusual…

1 – Why I changed my position on veganism based on the bad behavior of others – The issues I highlighted – privileged moralizing, nasty behavior, hypocrisy – are certainly not committed by all vegans (I was a pretty well behaved one myself, at least I like to think so) but I would argue that this behavior is common in the vegan/animal rights community at large. Even the more subtle and diet/lifestyle focused vegan organizations and websites portray veganism as an absolute good – downsides are downplayed or dismissed, while benefits are not only enthusiastically described in detail, but are often seriously overexaggerated. People become vegan for a reason - I know I did- just like people become paleo for a reason: they do it because they think it is the right thing to do, and they think it is BETTER than other alternatives. But veganism has a particularly strong moral philosophy and rigidity to it that I would argue many other diets do not have, and that is what can lead to problems.

I think one of the reasons for the proliferation of such bad behavior in vegan culture is that moral veganism, by its nature, is a pretty rigid and inflexible lifestyle (absolutely no animal products, no exceptions), so it breeds rigidity and fundamentalism in its members/communities in the same way strict religious ideologies and cults breed similar attitudes and behaviors. When a lifestyle is touted as being morally superior and righteous compared to all other lifestyles, things go downhill quickly and it’s only a matter of time before self righteousness and justifications for bad behavior begin to pop up. I don’t think it is odd to want to distance myself from that. It’s the same reason so many people nowadays are distancing themselves from organized religious groups with strict ideologies – sure not everyone is a fundamentalist nutter who hates women and gay people, but many people just don’t want to be associated with a community that seems like it is often poised to judge, harass, or condemn someone.

It should also be noted, I ultimately changed for many other reasons too – like the delusion element (I was deluding myself thinking that my vegan foods were always, automatically the best choice, or that they weren’t hurting animals) but the militant moral attitude that can be pervasive in the vegan community certainly didn’t help. I don’t want myself, my kids, or my family associated with such rigid belief systems.

2. I love that you boiled it down to “trying your best.” I think this is absolutely true of most ethical/conscientious eaters regardless of their preferred lifestyle. Trying your best implies that you would be willing to change your beliefs and possibly your own behavior if you were presented with new evidence suggesting that it is okay or even better to do things differently. But this requires flexibility in one’s attitudes, and because the moral philosophy of veganism is by definition inflexible (eating animals always bad/cruel/unfair/unhealthy/etc!), we have a problem. In my experience, too many vegans rigidly insist that vegan foods are almost always the more moral choice even in the face clear evidence or circumstances that make their position highly questionable. I would argue that such behavior is not trying your best, but the staunch promotion of a moral ideology regardless of evidence. Such behavior is more akin to faith in a religion than a nuanced, evidence-based viewpoint. There is a difference, although I must admit when I was vegan I couldn’t really see it.

3. Regarding grain inputs and environmental impact – your assumption of the double whammy is correct but only in industrialized agriculture circumstances. What about local, pasture based operations that operate with extremely minimal grain inputs (such as pasture based sheep which consume precious little grain if any at all)? What about hunters who eat deer meat, trappers who eat small game, or people who fish? Subsistence hunting is still alive and well in the US, and all over the globe. However, to many vegans I have met, and vegan organizations, even these foods are not acceptable. They would argue that it would be more morally acceptable for the eater to buy packaged tofu (even tofu shipped thousands of miles from California and made after crushing a bunch of field wildlife) than hunt their own meat.

This hits what I just mentioned in point #2. Someone who is truly just trying their best to make ethical food choices, and is willing to change their views and beliefs based on new evidence should think: “Hmmmm…let’s weigh the evidence. The wild deer had a natural, free life. Deer populations are booming and need to be reduced to eliminate over browsing and starvation in winter. The hunter is being extremely responsible and sustainable by only taking 1 deer per season, and if he is a good shot the death will be relatively swift and humane. Game meat is known for being lean and of high quality compared to industrialized meats, so it’s probably healthier for the hunter too. There is no industrialized suffering, little environmental cost (and perhaps even some benefit), and as quick a death as most of us can hope for in this world. Okay, looks like you don’t have to be purely vegan after all…I guess meat from hunting can be an ethical choice too.” But you and I both know….an awful lot of vegans and organizations don’t think like this. They will just continue to insist all meat eating bad, vegan good….over and over….despite the fact that their main arguments: animal suffering, environmental impact, etc have been dismantled. And they do this because they aren’t actually concerned about the evidence, or even the impacts on animals/the planet, they are concerned about promoting their rigid ideology where eating meat is always the wrong choice no matter what.

Please remember, I am not against veganism as a diet or general lifestyle – I am against it as a moral philosophy that suggests its followers are somehow morally superior to non vegans. I just simply see no good evidence for such sweeping moral generalizations.

[little_brown_dog]

Yup, you heard that right. I think veganism as it is practiced by most people in western industrialized nations is hardly the moral highground that it is portrayed to be.

I would avoid making generalizations toward any group of people as it hardly lends itself well to making a valid point. You've essentially categorized all vegans as being "privileged, cultish, delusional and hypocritical" people. As you can read in this thread, there are many vegans that don't live "holier than thou" and don't look down on other meat eaters in any way. I am myself a vegan, however my wife is not. I don't think you'd find me marrying a person if I found her to be "morally deficient or barbaric" as you say. Most vegans were once non-vegans at one point in their life and so I think you'll find that most of them can relate well with those that still eat meat and likely are among many meat-eaters in their families, all of whom they still love dearly.

Obviously this is a choice for the individual to make. But, it is important for the individual to make an informed decision for themselves without letting emotional judgement toward any group of people get in the way. The world is becoming more and more urbanized which means backyard farming is becoming less of an option for people. Because it is an important decision for the individual to make, I don't see why it is that you feel the need to base your own decision off your own perceptions toward a group of individuals. Even if all vegans as a whole were "uppity snobs" that ultimately are making the right choice, shouldn't you base your decision for yourself, not based on whether or not that group is "uppity", but based on whether the choice itself is the right choice or not?

I realize why you are defensive about my comments (I would be too if I were still vegan)…but I did not say all vegans were horrific yuppie snobs. Remember I too was a vegan…one who very much believed whole heartedly in veganism (for both pragmatic and moral reasons) for quite a while.

Let’s state the obvious though- veganism, like other niche dietary philosophy, does seem to be a phenomenon that is predominantly relegated to the privileged classes – the highly educated, the well off, etc. I used to work with the urban poor – never met a vegan let me tell you. I used to work with refugees – nope, no vegans. I used to volunteer at vegan/vegetarian fairs/outings, and yup – almost everyone there (volunteers and attendees) was white, college educated, well dressed. It isn’t judgmental to recognize that some dietary lifestyles are predominantly found in privileged segments of society. If you are reading into my assessment here, please know, I am simply describing a demographic group – the same one that also caters to paleo supporters I suspect. Veganism doesn’t have to be intentionally snobby to accidentally end up being a classist movement to some extent. And as for the words I used expressing vegan judgement on meat eaters, just go on any vegan forum, sub-reddit, vegetarian festival, etc and you will see these attitudes flying around. I didn't make this stuff up, its out there. There was even a thread here on MMM a while back where a vegan was upset at her meat eating roommates and these sentiments were expressed by vegan board members.

Lastly, as I mentioned previously I was going after veganism as a moral philosophy – not the pragmatic issues of access to industrialized meat sources vs pasture based, etc. Of course many vegan foods are far better than industrial animal products, and of course most Americans do not consume the lower impact meats/animal products due to price and access issues, but my post was about the problems with moral absolutism. I was picking apart veganism’s enduring moral position that plant foods are always the better choice than animal foods.

[lifeanon269]

I realize why you are defensive about my comments (I would be too if I were still vegan)…but I did not say all vegans were horrific yuppie snobs. Remember I too was a vegan…one who very much believed whole heartedly in veganism (for both pragmatic and moral reasons) for quite a while.

Let’s state the obvious though- veganism, like other niche dietary philosophy, does seem to be a phenomenon that is predominantly relegated to the privileged classes – the highly educated, the well off, etc. I used to work with the urban poor – never met a vegan let me tell you. I used to work with refugees – nope, no vegans. I used to volunteer at vegan/vegetarian fairs/outings, and yup – almost everyone there (volunteers and attendees) was white, college educated, well dressed. It isn’t judgmental to recognize that some dietary lifestyles are predominantly found in privileged segments of society. If you are reading into my assessment here, please know, I am simply describing a demographic group – the same one that also caters to paleo supporters I suspect. Veganism doesn’t have to be intentionally snobby to accidentally end up being a classist movement to some extent. And as for the words I used expressing vegan judgement on meat eaters, just go on any vegan forum, sub-reddit, vegetarian festival, etc and you will see these attitudes flying around. I didn't make this stuff up, its out there. There was even a thread here on MMM a while back where a vegan was upset at her meat eating roommates and these sentiments were expressed by vegan board members.

Lastly, as I mentioned previously I was going after veganism as a moral philosophy – not the pragmatic issues of access to industrialized meat sources vs pasture based, etc. Of course many vegan foods are far better than industrial animal products, and of course most Americans do not consume the lower impact meats/animal products due to price and access issues, but my post was about the problems with moral absolutism. I was picking apart veganism’s enduring moral position that plant foods are always the better choice than animal foods.

I'm not being defensive. It isn't my own point of view I'm defending. I was remarking on the fact that you're making generalizations about a group of people and one that you feel you have no qualms about continuing to make regardless of how anecdotal your own experience may be. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of generalizing about a group of people while critiquing the generalizations that you feel the group makes in regards to the ethics of meat eating. As I said, it doesn't really do anything to further the discussion.

Discrediting someone's moral decision to not eat meat while not acknowledging the fact that access to "humane pasture raised" animal foods may not be feasible for them ultimately doesn't discredit their moral decision at all. So what good does discrediting an entire population's moral decision do without accouting for that fact across that same population? In my opinion, you did nothing to discredit them, you only validated them.

[little_brown_dog]

I realize why you are defensive about my comments (I would be too if I were still vegan)…but I did not say all vegans were horrific yuppie snobs. Remember I too was a vegan…one who very much believed whole heartedly in veganism (for both pragmatic and moral reasons) for quite a while.

Let’s state the obvious though- veganism, like other niche dietary philosophy, does seem to be a phenomenon that is predominantly relegated to the privileged classes – the highly educated, the well off, etc. I used to work with the urban poor – never met a vegan let me tell you. I used to work with refugees – nope, no vegans. I used to volunteer at vegan/vegetarian fairs/outings, and yup – almost everyone there (volunteers and attendees) was white, college educated, well dressed. It isn’t judgmental to recognize that some dietary lifestyles are predominantly found in privileged segments of society. If you are reading into my assessment here, please know, I am simply describing a demographic group – the same one that also caters to paleo supporters I suspect. Veganism doesn’t have to be intentionally snobby to accidentally end up being a classist movement to some extent. And as for the words I used expressing vegan judgement on meat eaters, just go on any vegan forum, sub-reddit, vegetarian festival, etc and you will see these attitudes flying around. I didn't make this stuff up, its out there. There was even a thread here on MMM a while back where a vegan was upset at her meat eating roommates and these sentiments were expressed by vegan board members.

Lastly, as I mentioned previously I was going after veganism as a moral philosophy – not the pragmatic issues of access to industrialized meat sources vs pasture based, etc. Of course many vegan foods are far better than industrial animal products, and of course most Americans do not consume the lower impact meats/animal products due to price and access issues, but my post was about the problems with moral absolutism. I was picking apart veganism’s enduring moral position that plant foods are always the better choice than animal foods.

I'm not being defensive. It isn't my own point of view I'm defending. I was remarking on the fact that you're making generalizations about a group of people and one that you feel you have no qualms about continuing to make regardless of how anecdotal your own experience may be. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of generalizing about a group of people while critiquing the generalizations that you feel the group makes in regards to the ethics of meat eating. As I said, it doesn't really do anything to further the discussion.

Discrediting someone's moral decision to not eat meat while not acknowledging the fact that access to "humane pasture raised" animal foods may not be feasible for them ultimately doesn't discredit their moral decision at all. So what good does discrediting an entire population's moral decision do without accouting for that fact across that same population? In my opinion, you did nothing to discredit them, you only validated them.

 I mentioned earlier in my response that not all vegans engage in bad behavior but that does not mean it does not exist to an alarming degree in vegan communities at large. If you think I am generalizing about the socioeconomic factors, vegetarianism is known to be associated with better social/educational position. This makes sense, as more highly educated/well off people might naturally have more exposure to different dietary lifestyles, have more nutritional education, and have better access to different food sources including vegetarian specialty foods (just speculating here).

Here are just a handful of links verifying my position and corroborating my own personal experience. The first looks at Dutch vegetarians – all found to be more likely to be higher educated, higher SES. The second of US meat consumption habits – also related to SES and race. And finally an NIH newsletter where a cancer researcher was quoted as saying that vegetarianism is associated with higher SES in the US. I am happy to have philosophical discussions but please don’t accuse me of overgeneralizing when I am simply pointing out a demographic trend that others have studied and also acknowledge. I should have pointed out the demographic trends more clearly in my original post.

Vegetarians (n = 63) and consumers of meat substitutes (n = 39) had similar socio-demographic profiles: higher education levels, higher social economic status, smaller households, and more urbanised residential areas, compared to meat consumers (n = 4313).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15183917/

Findings revealed meat consumption had an inverse relationship with educational status, and that laborers (lower SES) had more meat consumption. The authors state “eating habits reflect class position.”
http://ww.w.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her101/101gossardyork.pdf

From this NIH newsletter on the health benefits of a more vegetarian diet…
“They also typically have a higher socioeconomic status, at least in the United States,” says Krebs-Smith.
https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/issue/jul2012/feature1

[lifeanon269]

Here are just a handful of links verifying my position and corroborating my own personal experience.

I'm not arguing demographics. I never was. There is a big difference between demographics (age, gender, income, race, etc) and "cultlike, delusional, hypocrisy, privileged", etc. All terms you used to describe vegans in general. Yet, demographics (no matter what census you wish to use) do nothing to merit those adjectives against them. It is clear you have a bias against anyone who claims to be a vegan, so I'll refrain from arguing any more as it clearly won't matter at this point. The points I made previously still stand and I don't need to say any more to that end. I wish you the best.

[Celda]

Post 103 is filled with misinformation and logical fallacies. It's surprising that a supposed former vegan would be so misinformed.

1.   Veganism is an extremely privileged ideology – The majority of vegans are highly educated, well off....

-It's irrelevant whether vegans are rich or not. The only thing that's relevant is whether one must be rich to be vegan, which is not the case. Vegan foods are cheaper than animal products.

-It's irrelevant that most vegans are white, in a country with mostly white people. Veganism and vegetarianism is relatively common in countries like India and Thailand, where there are virtually no white people.

Cult like behavior, rigid ideology, humiliation of ex members– Many vegan movements and groups are almost cultlike in their moral rigidity.

-Again, this is irrelevant. Even if God came down and declared that 70% of vegans were arrogant douchebags, that would have zero bearing on whether it was better to be vegan or not.

3.   Delusion – Veganism as it is practiced by many members and vegan groups is delusional. There is this idea that by being vegan you are avoiding and opting out of killing. This is just absolutely delusional and patently false.

Even if it was true that 100% of vegans falsely believed that no animals are killed in order to grow crops, that would again have zero bearing on whether it was better to be vegan or not. Moreover, I have seen far more omnivores say delusional and objectively false statements.

Hypocrisy – when confronted with the obvious fact that even plant foods cause widespread killing of animals, most vegans claim that it is a “necessary evil” and generally justify and rationalize this death. There would be no problem with this if it weren’t so hypocritical. The same people who justify the deaths of rodents, birds, and reptiles in the soy fields often turn around and mock and shame those who are eating meat for justifying the deaths of farm animals. They harangue people for eating pigs and not dogs, but can’t seem to identify the exact same behavior in themselves: they arbitrarily assign more value to farm animals than wildlife. To many vegans it is okay to mow  over hundreds of field mice but not okay to kill a single chicken.

There is no hypocrisy. Many vegans would kill a human if it was necessary to save their own life. I would myself. But I would not kill a human if it was not necessary.

Likewise, eating meat results in exponentially more animal deaths than eating plants. What you don't seem to know (or if you do know, then dishonestly failed to mention) is that the majority of crops are grown to feed animals, which humans then eat. Which is why, if you actually cared about field mice, you would not eat meat.

Misrepresentation of the wildlife and environmental impacts of veganism vs meat eating – Veganism is often misrepresented as THE diet for reducing harm to wildlife and the environment at large, regardless of where the food sources in the diet come from. In this view, a block of tofu shipped in from thousands of miles away is more climate/wildlife/planet friendly than eating a chicken butchered in your neighbor’s backyard, simply by virtue of being a plant and not an animal food. This is clearly not correct.

Local food has virtually no effect on environmental impact. The vast majority of environmental impact comes from food production, not transportation.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f

"GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%...Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food."

Or this article that compares the environmental impact of different foods, per calorie:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?utm_term=.95be242f5cb2

Note that the lowest-impact foods are vegan - nuts, lentils, rice, beans, tofu. The highest-impact are lamb and beef. Chicken is moderate, though far above the vegan staples.

[shelivesthedream]

Celda: "local food has virtually no effect on environmental impact" - Just FYI, I (and I think a lot of other people) use the word "local" as a shortcut to mean "produced by an independent farmer on a small scale which doesn't seem absolutely maximum profit through industrial farming techniques in a place close enough for you to visit and therefore check up on". Not saying everyone uses the word like that, but promoting "local" food is usually about more than reducing carbon emissions from transport.

[GuitarStv]

Celda: "local food has virtually no effect on environmental impact" - Just FYI, I (and I think a lot of other people) use the word "local" as a shortcut to mean "produced by an independent farmer on a small scale which doesn't seem absolutely maximum profit through industrial farming techniques in a place close enough for you to visit and therefore check up on". Not saying everyone uses the word like that, but promoting "local" food is usually about more than reducing carbon emissions from transport.

FWIW, small scale independent farmers are less efficient at producing crops.  For certain harvests they waste more land, water, and energy than the bigger factory farms . . . that's why they have to charge more for their food.  Bigger corporate farms have certainly contributed to environmental destruction as well, but the choice between the two is not as clear cut for the environment as you may be led to believe.

[KelStache]

I also agree that no diet is harmless, but if you look back in the thread for the graph I posted, animals must eat cultivated crops to live (soy, corn, etc.), so by eating meat it's a "double whammy" in terms of killing the animal you eat as well as the animals in the crop fields. 

Your premise is wrong.  Animals do not need to eat cultivated crops to live.  They can be sustained with natural forage (especially ruminants).  If they needed mass produced soy or corn, where did the cows come from?  Did farmers invent them at the time of the beginning of the agricultural era, 10,000 years ago?

Honestly the kind of thinking reflected in this post seems like the very thing little_brown_dog is criticizing.  If you believe that line you typed, you drank a whole lot of the Kool-Aid.

Okay please don't be condescending, I'm really enjoying exploring these topics with people of all different opinions and backgrounds.  I should have written "most animals consumed in America today eat cultivated crops to live"; I'm well aware that ruminants *can* be completely grass fed in areas where there is ample pasture land and the winters aren't too harsh.

*edited for clarity

[KelStache]

Former vegan now vegetarian here…

Wanted to weigh in on why I am no longer vegan for moral reasons....

Hi litte_brown_dog, I definitely applaud you for eating the way you feel comfortable with.  I'm not sure I'm a fan of your reasoning though, as most of your arguments surround what "most vegans" think or do, and this has not been my experience at all.  The vegans I know are very open to discussion on all of the topics you've listed, and basically sum it up as "doing their best".

It is totally cool that you disagree with those topics, but I don't understand why you would change your eating habits based on what other people who eat the same way might think or do?  You don't have to join vegan clubs, or even tell others that you're vegan in order to eat plant based.

I also agree that no diet is harmless, but if you look back in the thread for the graph I posted, animals must eat cultivated crops to live (soy, corn, etc.), so by eating meat it's a "double whammy" in terms of killing the animal you eat as well as the animals in the crop fields. 

Hopefully this doesn't come off poorly, I just don't see any similarities between what you claim 'most vegans' are like, and myself & the people I know who are vegan.

Nothing came across wrong at all, your post is very thoughtful and honestly sounds about where my line of thinking was a few years ago when I was vegan.
I’ll try to hit your points individually to better explain my reasoning. I realize my ideas are a little unusual…

1 – Why I changed my position on veganism based on the bad behavior of others – The issues I highlighted – privileged moralizing, nasty behavior, hypocrisy – are certainly not committed by all vegans (I was a pretty well behaved one myself, at least I like to think so) but I would argue that this behavior is common in the vegan/animal rights community at large. Even the more subtle and diet/lifestyle focused vegan organizations and websites portray veganism as an absolute good – downsides are downplayed or dismissed, while benefits are not only enthusiastically described in detail, but are often seriously overexaggerated. People become vegan for a reason - I know I did- just like people become paleo for a reason: they do it because they think it is the right thing to do, and they think it is BETTER than other alternatives. But veganism has a particularly strong moral philosophy and rigidity to it that I would argue many other diets do not have, and that is what can lead to problems.

I think one of the reasons for the proliferation of such bad behavior in vegan culture is that moral veganism, by its nature, is a pretty rigid and inflexible lifestyle (absolutely no animal products, no exceptions), so it breeds rigidity and fundamentalism in its members/communities in the same way strict religious ideologies and cults breed similar attitudes and behaviors. When a lifestyle is touted as being morally superior and righteous compared to all other lifestyles, things go downhill quickly and it’s only a matter of time before self righteousness and justifications for bad behavior begin to pop up. I don’t think it is odd to want to distance myself from that. It’s the same reason so many people nowadays are distancing themselves from organized religious groups with strict ideologies – sure not everyone is a fundamentalist nutter who hates women and gay people, but many people just don’t want to be associated with a community that seems like it is often poised to judge, harass, or condemn someone.

It should also be noted, I ultimately changed for many other reasons too – like the delusion element (I was deluding myself thinking that my vegan foods were always, automatically the best choice, or that they weren’t hurting animals) but the militant moral attitude that can be pervasive in the vegan community certainly didn’t help. I don’t want myself, my kids, or my family associated with such rigid belief systems.

2. I love that you boiled it down to “trying your best.” I think this is absolutely true of most ethical/conscientious eaters regardless of their preferred lifestyle. Trying your best implies that you would be willing to change your beliefs and possibly your own behavior if you were presented with new evidence suggesting that it is okay or even better to do things differently. But this requires flexibility in one’s attitudes, and because the moral philosophy of veganism is by definition inflexible (eating animals always bad/cruel/unfair/unhealthy/etc!), we have a problem. In my experience, too many vegans rigidly insist that vegan foods are almost always the more moral choice even in the face clear evidence or circumstances that make their position highly questionable. I would argue that such behavior is not trying your best, but the staunch promotion of a moral ideology regardless of evidence. Such behavior is more akin to faith in a religion than a nuanced, evidence-based viewpoint. There is a difference, although I must admit when I was vegan I couldn’t really see it.

3. Regarding grain inputs and environmental impact – your assumption of the double whammy is correct but only in industrialized agriculture circumstances. What about local, pasture based operations that operate with extremely minimal grain inputs (such as pasture based sheep which consume precious little grain if any at all)? What about hunters who eat deer meat, trappers who eat small game, or people who fish? Subsistence hunting is still alive and well in the US, and all over the globe. However, to many vegans I have met, and vegan organizations, even these foods are not acceptable. They would argue that it would be more morally acceptable for the eater to buy packaged tofu (even tofu shipped thousands of miles from California and made after crushing a bunch of field wildlife) than hunt their own meat.

This hits what I just mentioned in point #2. Someone who is truly just trying their best to make ethical food choices, and is willing to change their views and beliefs based on new evidence should think: “Hmmmm…let’s weigh the evidence. The wild deer had a natural, free life. Deer populations are booming and need to be reduced to eliminate over browsing and starvation in winter. The hunter is being extremely responsible and sustainable by only taking 1 deer per season, and if he is a good shot the death will be relatively swift and humane. Game meat is known for being lean and of high quality compared to industrialized meats, so it’s probably healthier for the hunter too. There is no industrialized suffering, little environmental cost (and perhaps even some benefit), and as quick a death as most of us can hope for in this world. Okay, looks like you don’t have to be purely vegan after all…I guess meat from hunting can be an ethical choice too.” But you and I both know….an awful lot of vegans and organizations don’t think like this. They will just continue to insist all meat eating bad, vegan good….over and over….despite the fact that their main arguments: animal suffering, environmental impact, etc have been dismantled. And they do this because they aren’t actually concerned about the evidence, or even the impacts on animals/the planet, they are concerned about promoting their rigid ideology where eating meat is always the wrong choice no matter what.

Please remember, I am not against veganism as a diet or general lifestyle – I am against it as a moral philosophy that suggests its followers are somehow morally superior to non vegans. I just simply see no good evidence for such sweeping moral generalizations.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful response little_brown_dog!  Yes I totally see where you're coming from and I think that it's very important that these things are discussed openly, rather than being shut down and attacked, as some organizations and groups do.  Ethical eating is such a complicated topic and there is so much to consider!  But I think that if people are taking the time to consider what they're consuming from an ethical standpoint that deserves a huge kudos - whether that looks like veganism, sustenance hunting, local foods, or something else entirely :)

[gaja]

I also agree that no diet is harmless, but if you look back in the thread for the graph I posted, animals must eat cultivated crops to live (soy, corn, etc.), so by eating meat it's a "double whammy" in terms of killing the animal you eat as well as the animals in the crop fields. 

Your premise is wrong.  Animals do not need to eat cultivated crops to live.  They can be sustained with natural forage (especially ruminants).  If they needed mass produced soy or corn, where did the cows come from?  Did farmers invent them at the time of the beginning of the agricultural era, 10,000 years ago?

Honestly the kind of thinking reflected in this post seems like the very thing little_brown_dog is criticizing.  If you believe that line you typed, you drank a whole lot of the Kool-Aid.

Okay please don't be condescending, I'm really enjoying exploring these topics with people of all different opinions and backgrounds.  I should have written "most animals consumed in America today eat cultivated crops to live"; I'm well aware that ruminants *can* be completely grass fed in areas where there is ample land and no harsh winters.

Winter is no obstacle to keeping grazing animals. We eat mainly game, sheep, goat and reindeer (in addition to marine animals), and especially the latter ones survive, and even thrive in, very harsh conditions. Conditions where you can't grow vegetables or grain.

This is my largest issue with most vegan arguments. In large parts of the world vegetables are the logical choice, and I'm all for reducing the amount of grain feed used. Producing meat as cheaply as possible and transporting it for long distances causes questionable standards for the animals, and should be better regulated. But people also live in regions where the only vegetables you can grow are potatoes and rhubarb. In Norway, our forests are taking over the farm lands, and we could easily increase the amount of grazing animals without negative environmental impact. In fact, many of the most endangered insect and plant species depend on tranditionally farmed land and grazing animals.

[Slee_stack]

Most threads are pointless aren't they?  It all depends on the perspective of the individual.

I find the discussion interesting.

Thankfully, the issue doesn't impact me directly.  I don't know many Vegans and I haven't personally observed proselytizing from either Vegans or Meat eaters.

DW is a vegetarian.  She tried to do it without animal based supplements but became too weak.  She consumes Krill Oil (or something like that) to counter the effect.  Its fair to say that constitution is an individual thing.  I don't doubt some people could be 100% plant...just not DW.

Personally, I don't need a label for myself nor expect to label others.  I consume meat products about one meal a week and also avoid red meat all but once a year.

I worked with a 'Vegan' in the past who readily admitted his one weakness was for Chicken Wings.  I laughed at that because if i ever did make it that far, I'd also probably have Chicken Wings last on the list to fight through.

[KelStache]

I also agree that no diet is harmless, but if you look back in the thread for the graph I posted, animals must eat cultivated crops to live (soy, corn, etc.), so by eating meat it's a "double whammy" in terms of killing the animal you eat as well as the animals in the crop fields. 

Your premise is wrong.  Animals do not need to eat cultivated crops to live.  They can be sustained with natural forage (especially ruminants).  If they needed mass produced soy or corn, where did the cows come from?  Did farmers invent them at the time of the beginning of the agricultural era, 10,000 years ago?

Honestly the kind of thinking reflected in this post seems like the very thing little_brown_dog is criticizing.  If you believe that line you typed, you drank a whole lot of the Kool-Aid.

Okay please don't be condescending, I'm really enjoying exploring these topics with people of all different opinions and backgrounds.  I should have written "most animals consumed in America today eat cultivated crops to live"; I'm well aware that ruminants *can* be completely grass fed in areas where there is ample land and no harsh winters.

Winter is no obstacle to keeping grazing animals. We eat mainly game, sheep, goat and reindeer (in addition to marine animals), and especially the latter ones survive, and even thrive in, very harsh conditions. Conditions where you can't grow vegetables or grain.

This is my largest issue with most vegan arguments. In large parts of the world vegetables are the logical choice, and I'm all for reducing the amount of grain feed used. Producing meat as cheaply as possible and transporting it for long distances causes questionable standards for the animals, and should be better regulated. But people also live in regions where the only vegetables you can grow are potatoes and rhubarb. In Norway, our forests are taking over the farm lands, and we could easily increase the amount of grazing animals without negative environmental impact. In fact, many of the most endangered insect and plant species depend on tranditionally farmed land and grazing animals.

I'm definitely not against pasture-raised animal rearing in places where vegetables/grains can't be grown - makes total sense to use that land to produce food; I just wanted to point out that most supermarket meat isn't coming from the types of situations you described.  Legitimate question though- in the winters do you not supplement the farmed animals with hay, oats, or other feed?  At least where I am in Canada this supplementation is necessary or the animals will starve, as there is not enough living grass/forage in the winters, and any remaining vegetation is covered too deeply by snow.

[mm1970]

Here are just a handful of links verifying my position and corroborating my own personal experience.

I'm not arguing demographics. I never was. There is a big difference between demographics (age, gender, income, race, etc) and "cultlike, delusional, hypocrisy, privileged", etc. All terms you used to describe vegans in general. Yet, demographics (no matter what census you wish to use) do nothing to merit those adjectives against them. It is clear you have a bias against anyone who claims to be a vegan, so I'll refrain from arguing any more as it clearly won't matter at this point. The points I made previously still stand and I don't need to say any more to that end. I wish you the best.

Well, I can't really say for sure (need studies!) It sounds like her perspective, from being in the vegan community - is that the vast majority of of them are cult like, privileged, and religious about it.  Now, why does she have that perspective?

It could be because of the vegans she knew and met.
It could be because of the vegans on the internet.  It's easy to get that perspective from strident and shrill people on the internet, in blogs, on facebook, etc.
Does that mean all of them?  No.
Does it mean most of them?  Maybe not.
Does it mean that the ones you are most likely to hear from, the most vocal, are like that?  Perhaps.

It's kind of like politics.  All those people who voted for Trump saying "I'M NOT RACIST".  Maybe not, but you had to overlook that, and sadly you are now lumped with the racists.  Because they are the vocal ones.

Whether most vegans are privileged and cult-like - the ones that are vocal can very much be like that.

[little_brown_dog]

Here are just a handful of links verifying my position and corroborating my own personal experience.

I'm not arguing demographics. I never was. There is a big difference between demographics (age, gender, income, race, etc) and "cultlike, delusional, hypocrisy, privileged", etc. All terms you used to describe vegans in general. Yet, demographics (no matter what census you wish to use) do nothing to merit those adjectives against them. It is clear you have a bias against anyone who claims to be a vegan, so I'll refrain from arguing any more as it clearly won't matter at this point. The points I made previously still stand and I don't need to say any more to that end. I wish you the best.

Well, I can't really say for sure (need studies!) It sounds like her perspective, from being in the vegan community - is that the vast majority of of them are cult like, privileged, and religious about it.  Now, why does she have that perspective?

It could be because of the vegans she knew and met.
It could be because of the vegans on the internet.  It's easy to get that perspective from strident and shrill people on the internet, in blogs, on facebook, etc.
Does that mean all of them?  No.
Does it mean most of them?  Maybe not.
Does it mean that the ones you are most likely to hear from, the most vocal, are like that?  Perhaps.

It's kind of like politics.  All those people who voted for Trump saying "I'M NOT RACIST".  Maybe not, but you had to overlook that, and sadly you are now lumped with the racists.  Because they are the vocal ones.

Whether most vegans are privileged and cult-like - the ones that are vocal can very much be like that.

Yes unfortunately a lot of your possibilities ring true here for me. From my experience in the environmental/animal rights realm of veganism:

Most of the people I met were not in your face jerks....they were actually really conscientious, intelligent people who I really enjoyed being with most of the time…but that didn’t meant that their views and positions were always healthy, open minded, fair, or accurate. I was one of these people and I admit that openly now. A few were truly chill vegans…but these tended to be the ones who were vegan for health reasons, not moral ones like the environment or animal rights. I jokingly referred to them as the “selfish” vegans at the time. These are the vegans who would as soon be paleo as vegan, if they thought it would get them to better health.

On the internet – forums and websites – definitely where the bad behavior was most prevalent, like with anything else.

Interestingly, the fundamentalist trolls were not the norm (they never are, in any community) but, and this is a huge but, their outrageous behavior was never really shot down by even the cool vegans. So when a person railed against meat eaters, or attacked a vegetarian for not trying hard enough, at best people would say something along the lines of: “oh heyyy come on….they just don’t know stuff like we do/don’t have the facts/aren’t there yet…no need to be mean.”

There was always this sense that you never wanted to go too far standing up for non vegans…because then it might look like you were criticizing VEGANISM and you sure as hell didn’t want to be accused of such a thing. There are very real, serious social repercussions for criticizing veganism in the environmental/animal rights/social justice vegan community. And that’s what I mean by “cult like” – it was as if you were never allowed to openly and deeply question veganism even though you were a vegan yourself. If you did legitimately criticize it, you risked being completely hammered. If you brought up your doubts, people would double down and convince you they were silly/ignorant/misguided (here look at all of these studies, or pictures of suffering animals, or measures of C02 emissions!). Sure, most people would argue politely and passionately at first, but it was incessant, and would often take a contemptuous sort of turn if the person refused to agree, or didn’t back down.  Nothing in life is a pure good, everything has its downsides, but there really was this pervading sense that veganism was truly infallible. It was ideological group think at its finest, with each member not even realizing how they were contributing. You didn’t have to be the one on the attack, calling names, or behaving badly…all you had to do was remain silent and not speak up sufficiently for the questioner/doubter/heretic, and that alone would be enough to be a contribution that helped keep the vicious cycle churning.

Worse, if you decided you no longer wanted to be vegan, you had to really watch out. Ex vegans are often derided as stupid/uneducated/selfish/lazy for not being vegan anymore. People lose friends, positions, respect. There was a website dedicated to the “vegan sellout list”, where people post the personal stories and information of friends/family/coworkers who are no longer vegan for the sole purpose of mocking them and humiliating them for not being vegan anymore (don’t know if it’s still up because I refuse to look at it). Words like glutton, disgusting, and selfish are thrown around. Frankly, it can be SCARY being an ex-vegan who was active in the vegan community. It goes way beyond disagreements and passionate debating in many vegan circles….people can be socially punished if they stop being vegan, or even if they are not vegan “enough.” I know cult-like seems like a strong phrase, but I can’t think of a better way to really convey the type of social control that can be found in some vegan circles. I think people have a right to know that this is a problem in the vegan community when they look into veganism, because it can be hard for outsiders to really see this until they are knee deep in it.

The issue in these groups is not that the majority of people are blazing a$$hats. The issue is that they are good, smart people who are just absolutely convinced of the near infallible awesomeness of veganism (or are willing to act like they are), which results in this bizarre moral mob effect that is larger than any one person’s individual shortcomings and behaviors. The trolls aren’t in control in these circles, but they don’t have to be. Every time a new study comes out showing the benefits of less meat or no meat, that alone can increase the level of moral condemnation and pressure to conform in the group. Ironically, I don’t think meat eaters or regular vegetarians are the ones harmed by this…it’s vegan leaning people, or vegans themselves who are at most risk for being caught up and trapped in these damaging situations, because they are held to stricter standards of behavior and "self improvement"...indefinitely....

If anyone is interested in this social phenomenon, just type in “ex vegan harassment” into google and you’ll get story after story about this type of stuff.

Even writing my opinion here where mmm members (vegan and non vegan) are awesome and even keeled still made me anxious. Hopefully my experience here provides more clarification on my previous positions. It can be hard to admit that I was once a part of this too.

[gaja]

I also agree that no diet is harmless, but if you look back in the thread for the graph I posted, animals must eat cultivated crops to live (soy, corn, etc.), so by eating meat it's a "double whammy" in terms of killing the animal you eat as well as the animals in the crop fields. 

Your premise is wrong.  Animals do not need to eat cultivated crops to live.  They can be sustained with natural forage (especially ruminants).  If they needed mass produced soy or corn, where did the cows come from?  Did farmers invent them at the time of the beginning of the agricultural era, 10,000 years ago?

Honestly the kind of thinking reflected in this post seems like the very thing little_brown_dog is criticizing.  If you believe that line you typed, you drank a whole lot of the Kool-Aid.

Okay please don't be condescending, I'm really enjoying exploring these topics with people of all different opinions and backgrounds.  I should have written "most animals consumed in America today eat cultivated crops to live"; I'm well aware that ruminants *can* be completely grass fed in areas where there is ample land and no harsh winters.

Winter is no obstacle to keeping grazing animals. We eat mainly game, sheep, goat and reindeer (in addition to marine animals), and especially the latter ones survive, and even thrive in, very harsh conditions. Conditions where you can't grow vegetables or grain.

This is my largest issue with most vegan arguments. In large parts of the world vegetables are the logical choice, and I'm all for reducing the amount of grain feed used. Producing meat as cheaply as possible and transporting it for long distances causes questionable standards for the animals, and should be better regulated. But people also live in regions where the only vegetables you can grow are potatoes and rhubarb. In Norway, our forests are taking over the farm lands, and we could easily increase the amount of grazing animals without negative environmental impact. In fact, many of the most endangered insect and plant species depend on tranditionally farmed land and grazing animals.

I'm definitely not against pasture-raised animal rearing in places where vegetables/grains can't be grown - makes total sense to use that land to produce food; I just wanted to point out that most supermarket meat isn't coming from the types of situations you described.  Legitimate question though- in the winters do you not supplement the farmed animals with hay, oats, or other feed?  At least where I am in Canada this supplementation is necessary or the animals will starve, as there is not enough living grass/forage in the winters, and any remaining vegetation is covered too deeply by snow.

Depends on the micro climate. Not all cold places have a lot of snow, and there is a reason most animals are slaughtered in the autumn. Game animals and reindeer can dig out moss, or eat trees and bark. Along the coast, the snow often doesn't get deeper than what the sheep can manage. And then in other areas or with other animals, you can add some hay/silo to their feed to make sure they survive. Feeding the animals dried grass is very different from feeding them grain, as long as you don't grow the grass in areas where it is possible to grow human food.

[mm1970]

Putting all of that aside, and attempting to relate this somewhat to Mustachianism, I've learned a ton lately about nutrition guidelines and cultural norms. There are so many things people do and believe because of marketing, pressure on government from big industries, and, most amazingly to me, "powers that be" who establish guidelines that fall short of where we really should be because, "Aw, shucks, that's so extreme that almost all Americans will just say it's not possible to exercise that much or to get their cholesterol that low, and they won't even bother, so we might as well just give them an easier goal to aim for." Seriously, that is insulting. That's like someone telling me I'll be fine if I just set aside 5% of my income every year. I would so much rather know what "optimal" is and then decide for myself whether I can/should aim for it or not. Just like finances, you really can't let the world tell you what you should know about taking care of your own body. You have to do your own research and challenge the status quo.

There are some very good points in here.  I just got done with my annual physical (first one in 6 years).  I got the "perimenopause" talk.  Part of the convo was "60% of women your age have symptoms, but interestingly only 2% of women marathoners do".  Which is nice, I guess, but I already know my joints don't hold up to that.  (Women apparently have a lot of adrenaline, which makes insomnia common, unless you run so much you run in out).  Anyway, as I exercise several hours a week, I figure it's a sliding scale.

And that's the thing with nutrition, it's a sliding scale too - AND - every body is different - AND - everyone has an agenda.  The guy behind nutritionfacts.org is vegan, no?  So he has an agenda.

[big_slacker]

Just coming back to this thread, glad to see it's stayed pretty civil!

For some of little brown dog's points.

I see why you wouldn't want to hang out with asshole vegans, but I don't get not doing something just because there are assholes doing it?

I totally get this logic: "I was vegan because I thought I was doing no harm, turns out I was and I now believe eating eggs I bought from my neighbor's chickens is better than buying tofu flown in from china." Totally makes sense.

This, I do not get: "A bunch off assholes are vegan, even though I can do it without being an asshole. So I started eating eggs."

First thing makes sense, second not so much. I'm guessing your reasons are more like the first along with not wanting to associate with the assholes, but it's being presented more like the second.

And note that I'm not trying to question your motives or anything of the sort. Not my business. Just trying to get to the logic behind the statements because it's interesting.

[KelStache]

Putting all of that aside, and attempting to relate this somewhat to Mustachianism, I've learned a ton lately about nutrition guidelines and cultural norms. There are so many things people do and believe because of marketing, pressure on government from big industries, and, most amazingly to me, "powers that be" who establish guidelines that fall short of where we really should be because, "Aw, shucks, that's so extreme that almost all Americans will just say it's not possible to exercise that much or to get their cholesterol that low, and they won't even bother, so we might as well just give them an easier goal to aim for." Seriously, that is insulting. That's like someone telling me I'll be fine if I just set aside 5% of my income every year. I would so much rather know what "optimal" is and then decide for myself whether I can/should aim for it or not. Just like finances, you really can't let the world tell you what you should know about taking care of your own body. You have to do your own research and challenge the status quo.

There are some very good points in here.  I just got done with my annual physical (first one in 6 years).  I got the "perimenopause" talk.  Part of the convo was "60% of women your age have symptoms, but interestingly only 2% of women marathoners do".  Which is nice, I guess, but I already know my joints don't hold up to that.  (Women apparently have a lot of adrenaline, which makes insomnia common, unless you run so much you run in out).  Anyway, as I exercise several hours a week, I figure it's a sliding scale.

And that's the thing with nutrition, it's a sliding scale too - AND - every body is different - AND - everyone has an agenda.  The guy behind nutritionfacts.org is vegan, no?  So he has an agenda.

Not saying that he doesn't have an agenda, but Dr. Greger claims that he is technically not vegan as he has no moral or ethical reasons for eating the way he does.  He says that he eats whatever diet that science shows is the most effective for a long, healthy life which just so happens to be plant based. 

[GuitarStv]

Considering that he's a doctor, Dr. Greger ignores an awful lot of the science that doesn't fit his agenda.  Many of his talks use cherry picked data to compare the healthiest possible vegan with the unhealthiest possible meat eating diet.  I'm generally on board with the concept of eating a vegan diet for health, and generally like Greger's message . . . but would advise anyone listening to this guy to very carefully check all the things he says.

[little_brown_dog]

Just coming back to this thread, glad to see it's stayed pretty civil!

For some of little brown dog's points.

I see why you wouldn't want to hang out with asshole vegans, but I don't get not doing something just because there are assholes doing it?

I totally get this logic: "I was vegan because I thought I was doing no harm, turns out I was and I now believe eating eggs I bought from my neighbor's chickens is better than buying tofu flown in from china." Totally makes sense.

This, I do not get: "A bunch off assholes are vegan, even though I can do it without being an asshole. So I started eating eggs."

First thing makes sense, second not so much. I'm guessing your reasons are more like the first along with not wanting to associate with the assholes, but it's being presented more like the second.

And note that I'm not trying to question your motives or anything of the sort. Not my business. Just trying to get to the logic behind the statements because it's interesting.

Yes I see what you mean…

I decided against veganism long term for many reasons – it definitely wasn’t like I thought “wow these people are jerks, I can eat eggs now!” Instead it was more like “wow…these rules are extremely strict, and worse they allow no consideration for nuance/circumstances/different human experiences…ever…is that fair? Is that right? Is that reasonable? Can an ideology that claims to be based on compassion be so rigid, inflexible, and so unforgiving in its judgment of humans?” I think these are questions one has to explore with all forms of rule-based ideologies…and I came to the conclusion that while veganism as an ideology/moral structure had many strengths that I loved (concern for animals, the planet, etc) it also was far from a morally perfect ideology due to all these other demons it seemed to battle with internally, which seemed to stem from its rigid definitions and benchmarks of right/wrong, moral/immoral, selfish/selfless, etc. I think if veganism was viewed more as a spectrum of behavior, or an imperfect journey,  by more of its adherents, it might not have these identity problems. But because the definition of a vegan is strict prohibition of animal products in one’s life, no matter what…there really is no room for gray areas. You are either vegan or you are not, and by definition, moral/ethical or not. That’s tricky to me on a moral level, because it is essentially demanding perfection from adherents.

Ultimately I came down to the conclusion that there was a huge difference between veganism as a practice (avoiding animal products the vast majority, or all of the time) and veganism as an ideology or religion (the moral requirement to avoid animal products all the time, no exceptions). I distanced myself not so much from the practice, which I have no problem with, but from the ideology element. In fact, learning about Peter Singer’s own sentiments and concerns about this moral absolutism kindof sealed the deal for me. Now I support veganism as a personal journey or practice, not as a guiding moral imperative that can serve as a benchmark for how morally superior or inferior one is based on the amount of animal products that one consumes. A great read on a thought process similar to my own is this one…

http://grist.org/living/the-case-for-imperfect-veganism/

Honestly, if I laid out all my complicated feelings on the subject it would take a book…so I focused just on some moral downsides of veganism as an ideology (although I do believe there are practical downsides too). I did this because even meat eaters often seem to put veganism on this almost martyr-like moral pedestal, and I wanted to point out that the ideology isn’t as morally pure/perfect as it seems, and it can actually be very damaging/harmful when people take it too seriously. As someone who was vegan and is still vegetarian, I just don’t think this romanticized and rosy colored vision of the vegan ideology helps anyone…people, animals, or the planet.

[lifeanon269]

And that's the thing with nutrition, it's a sliding scale too - AND - every body is different - AND - everyone has an agenda.  The guy behind nutritionfacts.org is vegan, no?  So he has an agenda.

By that definition of "agenda", anyone who practices what they preach (ie, not a hypocrite), would be said to have a hidden agenda. That seems more like a conspiracy theorist's definition of "agenda" to me.

Considering that he's a doctor, Dr. Greger ignores an awful lot of the science that doesn't fit his agenda.  Many of his talks use cherry picked data to compare the healthiest possible vegan with the unhealthiest possible meat eating diet.  I'm generally on board with the concept of eating a vegan diet for health, and generally like Greger's message . . . but would advise anyone listening to this guy to very carefully check all the things he says.

Do you have any specific examples to back up that claim? I'd love to see some.

He usually does a pretty good job of cross-examining the findings of any given study. For example, he showed examples of how the egg industry makes claims that eating eggs does't have an impact on one's blood-serum cholesterol levels. By using cross-sectional studies that looked at a given cohort's cholesterol levels at a given point in time, the egg industry could show that there was no correlation between eating eggs and blood-serum cholesterol levels. This is true because everyone's starting cholesterol levels could be very different before consuming eggs ever came into play. However, by conducting interventional studies, it could be shown that there was a drastic difference between the before and after blood-serum cholesterol levels after eating eggs.

I've also always seen him play devil's advocate when reviewing the conclusions of studies, always suggesting that the results might not ever be because of any given diet used in the study, but could be because of the cohort's leaner BMI, for example.

[lifeanon269]

Yes I see what you mean…

little_brown_dog, I know I said I wasn't going to add any more to the discussion with you, but after reading your last post I just wanted to comment on how much more moderate and reasonable your latest post was compared with the posts you had in our discussion earlier. Since you've laid it out in the way you had in this most recent post, it is much easier to understand you and you conveyed your point with much more civility. I'm glad you posted again with the demeanor you chose. While we may still disagree on veganism and its overall impact and ideals on society, at least I can appreciate your views this time around.   :)   Again, I wish you the best.

[GuitarStv]

Considering that he's a doctor, Dr. Greger ignores an awful lot of the science that doesn't fit his agenda.  Many of his talks use cherry picked data to compare the healthiest possible vegan with the unhealthiest possible meat eating diet.  I'm generally on board with the concept of eating a vegan diet for health, and generally like Greger's message . . . but would advise anyone listening to this guy to very carefully check all the things he says.

Do you have any specific examples to back up that claim? I'd love to see some.

He usually does a pretty good job of cross-examining the findings of any given study. For example, he showed examples of how the egg industry makes claims that eating eggs does't have an impact on one's blood-serum cholesterol levels. By using cross-sectional studies that looked at a given cohort's cholesterol levels at a given point in time, the egg industry could show that there was no correlation between eating eggs and blood-serum cholesterol levels. This is true because everyone's starting cholesterol levels could be very different before consuming eggs ever came into play. However, by conducting interventional studies, it could be shown that there was a drastic difference between the before and after blood-serum cholesterol levels after eating eggs.

I've also always seen him play devil's advocate when reviewing the conclusions of studies, always suggesting that the results might not ever be because of any given diet used in the study, but could be because of the cohort's leaner BMI, for example.

Sure.

Let's grab a video from his website:

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/

Greger talks about how veganism can prevent 75% of cancers.  The supporting reference he uses (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1518978/pdf/envhper00368-0167.pdf) says this:
"Considering the more recent evidence, it is roughly estimated that about 32% of cancer may be avoidable by changes in diet; however, it now seems unlikely that less than 20% or more than 42% of cancer deaths would be avoidable by dietary change."
"making quantitative estimates at this time is treacherous, as the available evidence can only be interpreted roughly"
"one can sensibly recommend an abundant consumption of fruits and vegetables and low intake of red meat"

Greger talks about how a single meal high in animal fat can 'cripple' our arteries citing this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9036757.  The study is of a group of ten people with no control group who ate a meal.  We don't know if this vasoactivity measured is any different than would be experienced by vegans who ate a similar calorie meal.

Greger claims that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease "can be prevented and even treated with a plant based diet" citing this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17941280.  Greger says of the study "This suggests that a high fat diet may contribute to chronic inflammatory disease of the airway and lungs."  This study actually shows no association between airway inflammation as measured by exhaled nitric oxide and systemic inflammation. The study doesn't mention anything about COPD or about the effect of removing animal foods from diet.

Greger says “We’ve known for 20 years that those who eat meat are 2-3 times as likely to become demented as vegetarians.”  He's citing this old study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8327020.  That study has matched and unmatched data.  (Matched data is used to eliminate confounding variables in a study.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_(statistics))  The matched data from the study cited doesn't support Greger's claims, only the unmatched data does.  Greger also forgets to mention studies showing the beneficial effect of animal products like fish oil on alzheimers (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12873849).


There are also a lot of related studies that Greger has forgotten to mention:

Vegans get ischemic heart disease more often than vegetarians:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479225

There's no difference in overall mortality between vegans and vegetarians:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19297458

The healthiest people in Europe, Iceland, Switzerland, and Scandanavia consume large amounts of animal products:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19166134



Like I said earlier, I agree with his general message . . . but Greger very carefully picks and chooses stuff that he agrees with, draws his own conclusions not supported by the data, and pointedly ignores stuff he doesn't agree with.  He is pushing an agenda, not disseminating information.  What's most disturbing is that he is able to cloak himself with an aura of legitimacy by knowing that the majority of people who listen to him will never double check the things he says.

[mm1970]

I'd like to thank Guitarstv for doing the leg work. I spent quite a bit of time awhile ago (last year?) on his website, probably because someone on MMM recommended it.

I have a *really* hard time with people who ignore the studies on the benefits of fish oil, fatty fish, etc. on health.

[lifeanon269]

Greger says “We’ve known for 20 years that those who eat meat are 2-3 times as likely to become demented as vegetarians.”  He's citing this old study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8327020.  That study has matched and unmatched data.  (Matched data is used to eliminate confounding variables in a study.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_(statistics))  The matched data from the study cited doesn't support Greger's claims, only the unmatched data does.  Greger also forgets to mention studies showing the beneficial effect of animal products like fish oil on alzheimers (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12873849).

I don't have time at the moment to go through all of this (I will try to and I appreciate your effort as well), but a lot of the studies you've linked to aren't studies that he has cited for that video at all and some of those studies are not cited at all for any of his videos anywhere on his site, that I could find.

I did look at this one and wanted to point out that the matched data does support his conclusions (correct me if I'm wrong). It was the unmatched data that failed to show any difference in vegetarians or meat-eaters with regard to dementia. It should be noted that both substudies also showed a delayed onset of dementia with the vegetarian group as well.

[big_slacker]

Ultimately I came down to the conclusion that there was a huge difference between veganism as a practice (avoiding animal products the vast majority, or all of the time) and veganism as an ideology or religion (the moral requirement to avoid animal products all the time, no exceptions).

Ideology and religions aren't my thing either, and I definitely see that (as you do) from vegans, particularly online. I do the practice and skip the labels and ideology. :D

I don't shoot for perfect, and especially not someone else's idea of perfect. No good can come of that.

[GuitarStv]

Greger says “We’ve known for 20 years that those who eat meat are 2-3 times as likely to become demented as vegetarians.”  He's citing this old study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8327020.  That study has matched and unmatched data.  (Matched data is used to eliminate confounding variables in a study.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_(statistics))  The matched data from the study cited doesn't support Greger's claims, only the unmatched data does.  Greger also forgets to mention studies showing the beneficial effect of animal products like fish oil on alzheimers (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12873849).

I don't have time at the moment to go through all of this (I will try to and I appreciate your effort as well), but a lot of the studies you've linked to aren't studies that he has cited for that video at all and some of those studies are not cited at all for any of his videos anywhere on his site, that I could find.

I did look at this one and wanted to point out that the matched data does support his conclusions (correct me if I'm wrong). It was the unmatched data that failed to show any difference in vegetarians or meat-eaters with regard to dementia. It should be noted that both substudies also showed a delayed onset of dementia with the vegetarian group as well.

My mistake on that one.  You're right, the unmatched data doesn't support the conclusions he draws, but the better matched data indicates that meat eaters are twice as likely to get dementia.  (Still not sure where the '-3' part that Gregor is talking about came from though.)

[powskier]

Well, if vegans had their way we would have to kill all the chickens, cows, goats and other animals that are only granted an existence because we use them for food production. Awkward , eh?
I was vegetarian for a while , while on a spiritual kick, it was an interesting experiment but more of an ego trip than most vegetarians care to admit. I feel far happier and healthier when I eat animals. I try to only kill my own or source "ethically". Nothing makes you understand the most fundamental aspects of your DNA as sourcing your own food.
Microscope organisms are feeding off of me all the time and will do so at my death ( no embalming bullshit or airtight boxes for me), I feed off of other organisms in a respectful manner and have no qualms about being part of the food chain...... except involving bears, before I am ancient.
Food and sustenance should be enjoyed, if your food choices make you feel like a control freak and tortured hater you should reevaluate them.

Happy vegan? Good for you, live well and let others do the same. Whiny self righteous vegan? Have a steak, you are likely short on protein and B vitamins and will feel better soon.

[lifeanon269]

Sure.

Let's grab a video from his website:

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/

...

Greger talks about how a single meal high in animal fat can 'cripple' our arteries citing this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9036757.  The study is of a group of ten people with no control group who ate a meal.  We don't know if this vasoactivity measured is any different than would be experienced by vegans who ate a similar calorie meal.

I'm not sure where you grabbed the citation for the above study. I searched his entire site and couldn't find where he cites that study. I did look at the citations for this video (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/fatty-meals-may-impair-artery-function/) where he specifically looks at how one single fatty meal can cripple arterial function. He does cite several studies with one in particular being a randomized double blind placebo controlled cross-over designed study that showed a single high fat meal greatly hinders endothelial function following the meal (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11150753). There have also been numerous studies that show improvements in endothelial function after meals consisting of high carbohydrate/high fiber (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17003313). More citations regarding the effects of high-fat meals can be found here (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/fatty-meals-may-impair-artery-function/#sources).

Greger claims that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease "can be prevented and even treated with a plant based diet" citing this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17941280.  Greger says of the study "This suggests that a high fat diet may contribute to chronic inflammatory disease of the airway and lungs."  This study actually shows no association between airway inflammation as measured by exhaled nitric oxide and systemic inflammation. The study doesn't mention anything about COPD or about the effect of removing animal foods from diet.

Again, I couldn't find a single citation for that study on his website anywhere for any video. Not sure where you are grabbing these citations. Maybe you can link specifically to where you say he is citing these studies? He does cite numerous studies that show how high-fiber and antioxidant rich diets can improve lung function:

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/54/11/1021.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150206
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/171/7/776.full.pdf+html

He also cites research showing how cured meats (bacon, ham, etc) have adverse effects on COPD (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/166/12/1438.full.pdf+html).

More citations can be found here with regard to COPD (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/preventing-copd-with-diet/#sources).

(Still not sure where the '-3' part that Gregor is talking about came from though.)

He is citing directly from the study where it said:

"The matched subjects who ate meat (including poultry and fish) were more than twice as likely to become demented as their vegetarian counterparts (relative risk 2.18, p = 0.065) and the discrepancy was further widened (relative risk 2.99, p = 0.048) when past meat consumption was taken into account."


Dr. Greger doesn't cherry pick or exclude studies from his research without good cause. For example, he absolutely acknowledges the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in our diet for heart health and acknowledges fish as a possible source (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/should-we-take-epa-and-dha-omega-3-for-our-heart/). But, diet goes beyond just one single ingredient and when you're trying to determine what the optimal diet is, you must consider all possible benefits and detriments of the food sources in any given diet. As such, there are numerous reasons that Dr. Greger states why it is best to avoid fish in the diet. Chief among them being the high amount of contaminants in fish (mercury, lead, cadmium, PCBs, etc). There is also a meta-analysis done that he cites that shows that for each additional serving of fish per week, the risk of type-2 diabetes goes up (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442397).

I don't mean to get into a debate about health. I merely wanted to call out the claim you made that Dr. Greger ignores studies that don't fit his "agenda". With what you've shown, I don't see how you've backed up that claim (and frankly I'm not even sure where you pulled some of your studies that you claim Dr. Greger cites). He is extremely diligent about providing proper citation for all his videos and his new book is extremely well cited. Even when looking at diets that include meat in them but are consuming very little amounts, when compared to diets that exclude meat all together, risk factors for disease went up when controlling for other risk factors and confounders (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088547). He talks about it more in this blog posting (http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/10/11/what-about-eating-just-a-little-meat/). So it isn't like he doesn't take into consideration the possibility of meat in a diet. He's just looking at diet as a whole. He's not looking at one single nutrient or one single disease. He just is looking for what is the most optimal diet for health that provides the lowest risk factors for all diseases of all kind. After all his research it is very easy to conclude that a whole-foods plant-based diet is optimal.

[Metta]

Happy vegan? Good for you, live well and let others do the same. Whiny self righteous vegan? Have a steak, you are likely short on protein and B vitamins and will feel better soon.

From my personal experience, it is never me who brings up the reasons for veganism. I have to say that I am a vegan (and seriously allergic to dairy products) when I'm in restaurants because there is no other efficient way to quiz the waitstaff on what is in the food. I tried not mentioning the V word in restaurants and just listing what I didn't eat but that was even more awkward.

Instead it is always others who insist on quizzing me on veganism at restaurants when I am hungry (and feeling slightly grumpy because I generally feel that way when I'm hungry). I would rather talk about just about anything else. My interlocutors are probably also slightly grumpy from hunger because they often attack my food choices and tell me how they hate vegans, who are all self-righteous prigs, and tell me I am delaying their food by asking questions of the waitstaff.

My worst experiences with this were in California at business lunches. I feel for those of you who live in San Francisco, whether vegan or non-vegan. Please know that there are better, kinder, more polite places to live.

The world would be a better place if business lunches could include wine, beer, and spirits again. People need some sedation.

[KelStache]

Well, if vegans had their way we would have to kill all the chickens, cows, goats and other animals that are only granted an existence because we use them for food production. Awkward , eh?
Aren't you going to kill the manyways? What if we just stop breeding them and let them live out their lives?
I was vegetarian for a while , while on a spiritual kick, it was an interesting experiment but more of an ego trip than most vegetarians care to admit. I feel far happier and healthier when I eat animals. I try to only kill my own or source "ethically".
Good for you, I feel happier and healthier as a vegan. What is this supposed to prove?
Nothing makes you understand the most fundamental aspects of your DNA as sourcing your own food.
I also source los of my own food through gardening, foraging, and farmers markets, and hope to do so even more in the future.
Microscope organisms are feeding off of me all the time and will do so at my death ( no embalming bullshit or airtight boxes for me), I feed off of other organisms in a respectful manner and have no qualms about being part of the food chain...... except involving bears, before I am ancient.
Microorganisms are not sentient- vegans try to avoid harming sentient beings. The lifestyle has nothing to do with the food chain
Food and sustenance should be enjoyed, if your food choices make you feel like a control freak and tortured hater you should reevaluate them.
I doubt any vegans feels this way, otherwise they'd just quit...

Happy vegan? Good for you, live well and let others do the same. Whiny self righteous vegan? Have a steak, you are likely short on protein and B vitamins and will feel better soon.
Rude, unnecessary, and factually incorrect.

[GilbertB]

Just my 2 cents...

Not a vegan, vegetarian or  Vulcan.
I have a mostly vegetable, whole cereal and fruits based diet.
But I reserve meat/fish for the once a week special meal and have grass fed, traceable really nice cut that I cook with great care.
The ecological problem, in my mind, is the amazing amount of people who have meat two or three times a day!
Then feed their endemic species destroying feline a extra can or two of the stuff...
And of course, all of shipped a few thousand miles...

Anybody can reduce their "meat impact" by 7 to 21 times by choosing for a special meal a good quality, locally sourced, "organic" if possible, well cared for and VERY TASTY cut - and actually enjoy as something exceptional..

As a country boy, I really like cows, pigs, chicken or sheep and understand that they produce during their lives. But also in death a multitude a products beyond food in what should be a sustainable manner (most leather products are only easily replaced by plastics etc).
But I truly hate intense animal producing (sorry that ain't farming) in awful conditions to produce pink slime for fast foods and leather that falls appart after only one season.

[GuitarStv]

Sure.

Let's grab a video from his website:

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/

...

Greger talks about how a single meal high in animal fat can 'cripple' our arteries citing this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9036757.  The study is of a group of ten people with no control group who ate a meal.  We don't know if this vasoactivity measured is any different than would be experienced by vegans who ate a similar calorie meal.

I'm not sure where you grabbed the citation for the above study. I searched his entire site and couldn't find where he cites that study.

The articles and citations are listed on screen at or near the points where he says the things that I listed.

I did look at the citations for this video (http://nutritionfacts.org/video/fatty-meals-may-impair-artery-function/) where he specifically looks at how one single fatty meal can cripple arterial function. He does cite several studies with one in particular being a randomized double blind placebo controlled cross-over designed study that showed a single high fat meal greatly hinders endothelial function following the meal (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11150753).

Right.  But that doesn't have anything to do with what he was claiming in the video I referenced.  He was claiming that animal fat is crippling to arteries.  Not referring to fat in general, which is what the study you linked references.

There have also been numerous studies that show improvements in endothelial function after meals consisting of high carbohydrate/high fiber (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17003313).

The study you linked refers an improvement only in people with metabolic syndrome.  (In general though, I would suggest that adhering to a high fiber diet is a great way to live your life.)  It doesn't deal at all with excluding all animal products from your life though, which is what Gregor is pushing in every talk he does.

Greger claims that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease "can be prevented and even treated with a plant based diet" citing this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17941280.  Greger says of the study "This suggests that a high fat diet may contribute to chronic inflammatory disease of the airway and lungs."  This study actually shows no association between airway inflammation as measured by exhaled nitric oxide and systemic inflammation. The study doesn't mention anything about COPD or about the effect of removing animal foods from diet.

Again, I couldn't find a single citation for that study on his website anywhere for any video. Not sure where you are grabbing these citations. Maybe you can link specifically to where you say he is citing these studies?

Watch the video and look at the information he provides on screen.

He does cite numerous studies that show how high-fiber and antioxidant rich diets can improve lung function:

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/54/11/1021.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20150206
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/171/7/776.full.pdf+html

High fiber diets are great.  That doesn't mean that you need to go vegan.  Antioxidants are good for you too.  That doesn't mean you need to go vegan.  These studies don't prove what was being claimed.

He also cites research showing how cured meats (bacon, ham, etc) have adverse effects on COPD (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/166/12/1438.full.pdf+html).

Yeah, cured meats are generally pretty bad for you.  You probably should cut them out of your diet completely.  That's not at all what he was arguing in the video though.[/quote]

(Still not sure where the '-3' part that Gregor is talking about came from though.)

He is citing directly from the study where it said:

"The matched subjects who ate meat (including poultry and fish) were more than twice as likely to become demented as their vegetarian counterparts (relative risk 2.18, p = 0.065) and the discrepancy was further widened (relative risk 2.99, p = 0.048) when past meat consumption was taken into account."

A p value of below .05 means that there's an error rate of between 23 - 50%.  Quoting a value below that is not very convincing evidence.

Dr. Greger doesn't cherry pick or exclude studies from his research without good cause.

To me, when you start excluding data that detracts from your agenda you're beginning to mislead people.  I know that you believe he's doing it for altruistic reasons.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.  Particularly given the rest of your comment:

I don't mean to get into a debate about health. I merely wanted to call out the claim you made that Dr. Greger ignores studies that don't fit his "agenda". With what you've shown, I don't see how you've backed up that claim (and frankly I'm not even sure where you pulled some of your studies that you claim Dr. Greger cites). He is extremely diligent about providing proper citation for all his videos and his new book is extremely well cited. Even when looking at diets that include meat in them but are consuming very little amounts, when compared to diets that exclude meat all together, risk factors for disease went up when controlling for other risk factors and confounders (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088547).

He talks about it more in this blog posting (http://nutritionfacts.org/2016/10/11/what-about-eating-just-a-little-meat/). So it isn't like he doesn't take into consideration the possibility of meat in a diet. He's just looking at diet as a whole. He's not looking at one single nutrient or one single disease. He just is looking for what is the most optimal diet for health that provides the lowest risk factors for all diseases of all kind. After all his research it is very easy to conclude that a whole-foods plant-based diet is optimal.

From the study you linked when discussing the single factor that appeared to suffer between vegetarian (not vegan) and meat eating Taiwanese diets:
"While our findings suggest a negative association between a vegetarian diet and diabetes/IFG, the temporal association is unclear due to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Although we have accounted for several confounders in our models, it is likely that other residual confounders still remain."

So, you've linked to a study that has nothing to do with consumption of fish, where it's uncertain that anything has been proven about blood glucose levels to show that eating a vegetarian (not vegan) diet is better than an omnivorous one?  C'mon man.

I'm strongly getting the impression you didn't watch Gregor's video that I linked to see where the sources referenced are coming from.  They're all taken from the information shown on screen, if not the direct studies then from the citations in the referenced articles that he showed during his lecture.

I get that you like Gregor.  That's fine.  Like I said, I agree with a lot of the stuff that he says . . . but he presents information to push an agenda.  He synthesizes conclusions from data that are not always supported by the data.

[lifeanon269]

GuitarStv, what is clear from your most recent post is that you're incorrectly evaluating statistics and extrapolating the findings of many of these studies beyond what they were intended to show.

For example, Dr. Greger makes the claim about animal fat crippling arteries based on the study that was linked to because of the fact that animal fat was the specific type of fat that was used within the study (they only tested with animal fat). You can't take a study sample and extrapolate that to say that "all fats can potentially cripple arteries" even if that may in fact be true. So in this case, Dr. Greger makes the correct scientific conclusion by saying specifically that animal fats cripple arterial function because the testing of non-animal fats and arterial function were never tested for specifically in the study. You can't assume that other types of fats would do the same thing until you actually test for them. So in this case, by specifically saying "animal fat" in reference to the study's conclusion is the proper conclusion for Dr. Greger to make given the study sample that he was citing. Dr Greger does however support the hypothesis that diets higher in fat (regardless of the fat source) is generally not good for health. There are plenty of studies that show that very low-fat diets (diets consisting of only whole plant foods) are capable of regressing atherosclerosis (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914909024096). Caldwell Esselstyn's studies back up those results as well.

A p value of below .05 means that there's an error rate of between 23 - 50%.  Quoting a value below that is not very convincing evidence.

That is an incorrect statement. You're gravely mistaking a p value as the same thing as an error rate. In this case, the p value simply means that assuming that there is no difference between meat-eaters and vegetarians with regards to dementia (the null hypothesis), then you'd receive the observed difference they saw in their study sample in about 4.8% of studies due to random sampling error. That study could have very well been one of those 4.8 percent of studies that showed a significant difference between meat-eaters and vegetarians. But, it tells you nothing of the error rate. It tells you nothing about the probability that they were making a mistake or the probability of their hypothesis being true. It is the probability of observing what they did, in fact, observe in a hypothetical situation where there is no difference between meat-eaters and vegetarians.

High fiber diets are great.  That doesn't mean that you need to go vegan.  Antioxidants are good for you too.  That doesn't mean you need to go vegan.  These studies don't prove what was being claimed.

I agree, those studies showed how diets high in fiber/antioxidants can help prevent COPD, which is exactly the hypothesis that Dr. Greger mentioned in the video. He simply mentioned how "a plant-based diet can help prevent COPD." Those studies absolutely support that statement because a plant-based diet is a diet that is high in fiber and antioxidants. Simply the addition of more plants to the diet will help in the prevention of COPD, so even an omnivorous diet that includes more fruits and vegetables will fair better than one that doesn't include fruits and vegetables, but that isn't the diet that Dr. Greger promotes overall, not because of COPD prevention, but for other reasons. So why would he suggest that? Instead, he's simply going to state that a plant-based diet can help prevent COPD (which is absolutely supported by the study referenced) since that is the overall diet he recommends. That is why I previously mentioned that Dr. Greger's recommendations go beyond one single nutrient or disease.

So, you've linked to a study that has nothing to do with consumption of fish, where it's uncertain that anything has been proven about blood glucose levels to show that eating a vegetarian (not vegan) diet is better than an omnivorous one?  C'mon man.

I wasn't talking about fish consumption at all when linking to that study. Did you read that paragraph? I didn't mention fish consumption at all in regards to that. That study was in regard to meat consumption in general and I said as such. Please read it again as I never talked about fish at all. I think you're confusing the previous paragraph with the one that was quoted. The previous paragraph was in regards to fish, the one you quoted was not.

Again, you've failed to show studies that explain how Dr. Greger cherry picks information (studies that show eating meat is better or equal to not eating meat at all). In order for Dr. Greger to cherry pick his studies, there would need to be statistically significant studies (meta-analysis) that show that there is no difference between those who include meat in there diet, versus those who don't include any meat in there diet at all. So far there hasn't been anything peer-reviewed that shows that in any medical journal. You would need numerous studies that show to a statiscally significant level that there is no continual benefit to decreasing the amount of meat consumed in a diet. In other words, you'd need to show that there is no difference in cardiovascular health between those who eat meat and those who do not.

The point of that last study I referenced to was to point out that Dr. Greger accounts for the idea that maybe it could be possible to lead a healthy life if you included even just a little bit of meat in the diet. However, it was shown that even with a little bit of meat in the diet (the amount of meat in the cohort's diet's were small), there is a clear statistically significant benefit in leaving the meat out of the diet altogether when it comes to the risk factors and disease outcomes (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0088547). So while in relative terms, compared to the average American, there might be benefits of moving to a diet that includes very little meat, there appears to be a linear benefit in regards to overall meat consumption and health. So the less meat in your diet, the better the health outcomes, all the way up to and including foregoing meat altogether.

EDIT: I edited the post because I realized the last study that was referenced was a link to the wrong study. I corrected that to point to the proper study.

[arebelspy]

This thread is informative, but also reminding me about my personal experiences of being cyber attacked by vegan 'activists' who are far less civil.  lifeanon, please realize the fear of vegan zealots is real and i deleted my own posts partly in resonse to the focused attitude and 'i am right' tone.   your vigorous defense is making me not want to post.

Why dont we let this side topic of this thread fade away. Please let it go.

MOD NOTE: Lifeanon is perfectly free to post his/her arguments, as long as he/she is following the forum rules.  I didn't read that wall of text, but if it violates the forum rules (say, a personal attack), please report it to the mods.  If not, a "vigorous defense" is exactly what we'd want in a debate, IMO.  Asking another member to stop posting just because you disagree with them (even if you've had other bad experiences with people who share one common trait with them in the past) is not fair to them, or to anyone wanting to learn or see both sides of an argument.

Cheers!

[lifeanon269]

This thread is informative, but also reminding me about my personal experiences of being cyber attacked by vegan 'activists' who are far less civil.  lifeanon, please realize the fear of vegan zealots is real and i deleted my own posts partly in resonse to the focused attitude and 'i am right' tone.   your vigorous defense is making me not want to post.

Why dont we let this side topic of this thread fade away. Please let it go.

PizzaSteve, please realize that I am not attacking anyone and that my discussion with GuitarStv is absolutely civil on both ends. I respect GuitarStv and frankly, I am enjoying the discussion with him. If my posts don't come off as civil, then I apologize. I am an analytical person and it is important that you understand that my posts are almost always purely analytical in nature. If I critique a point made by someone, it is not in attack of that person, but merely in critical analysis of the topic at hand. In no way shape or form did I attack GuitarStv as a person. I would never do that to him or anyone.

I favor analytical discussions and I love having them. I'm not sure how you can have a vigorous defense on one end without also having a vigorous defense of the other. Is there a reason why you singled me out? I totally get that there are vegan "activists" that are not civil and will attack people on the internet. The same could be said of people on any side of any discussion. However, from what I've seen by the majority who've posted in this thread is that for the most part, everyone has been very civil even though there are viewpoints from all ends of the spectrum. I invite all to the discussion. However, that doesn't mean that if you're in the discussion that you can be free from having your discussion points counter-analyzed by someone.

[GuitarStv]

GuitarStv, what is clear from your most recent post is that you're incorrectly evaluating statistics and extrapolating the findings of many of these studies beyond what they were intended to show.

For example, Dr. Greger makes the claim about animal fat crippling arteries based on the study that was linked to because of the fact that animal fat was the specific type of fat that was used within the study (they only tested with animal fat). You can't take a study sample and extrapolate that to say that "all fats can potentially cripple arteries" even if that may in fact be true. So in this case, Dr. Greger makes the correct scientific conclusion by saying specifically that animal fats cripple arterial function because the testing of non-animal fats and arterial function were never tested for specifically in the study. You can't assume that other types of fats would do the same thing until you actually test for them. So in this case, by specifically saying "animal fat" in reference to the study's conclusion is the proper conclusion for Dr. Greger to make given the study sample that he was citing. Dr Greger does however support the hypothesis that diets higher in fat (regardless of the fat source) is generally not good for health. There are plenty of studies that show that very low-fat diets (diets consisting of only whole plant foods) are capable of regressing atherosclerosis (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914909024096). Caldwell Esselstyn's studies back up those results as well.

A p value of below .05 means that there's an error rate of between 23 - 50%.  Quoting a value below that is not very convincing evidence.

That is an incorrect statement. You're gravely mistaking a p value as the same thing as an error rate. In this case, the p value simply means that assuming that there is no difference between meat-eaters and vegetarians with regards to dementia (the null hypothesis), then you'd receive the observed difference they saw in their study sample in about 4.8% of studies due to random sampling error. That study could have very well been one of those 4.8 percent of studies that showed a significant difference between meat-eaters and vegetarians. But, it tells you nothing of the error rate.

I know what a p value is, and agree that the p value is not directly comparable to an error rate.  That's not what I was trying to say though.  You can find error rate from a p value.  I'd encourage you to review this paper: http://www.dcscience.net/Sellke-Bayarri-Berger-calibration-of-P-2001.pdf which explains how.  A p value of .05 works out to mean that you are rejecting a true null hypothesis (or seeing something in the data that isn't there) 23-50% of the time.  Rejecting a true null hypothesis is an error, 23-50% of the time is the rate at which you'll make that error for the p value of .05.  The p value therefore tells you quite a bit about the error rate.

All that said, it's sort of irrelevant to Greger's message anyway, which pushes veganism.  The study compares vegetarians to people who eat meat.  Vegetarianism is not veganism, the two diets are quite different.  This seems self evident, but you appear to have conflated the two several times already in your posts.

FWIW, I do not feel attacked in any way by this conversation.  If anything, I feel that I'm the one doing the attacking and would like to thank anyone who has been offended by my comments for their patience with me.

I'll respond to the rest of your comments when I get more free time.

[lifeanon269]

I know what a p value is, and agree that the p value is not directly comparable to an error rate.  That's not what I was trying to say though.  You can find error rate from a p value.  I'd encourage you to review this paper: http://www.dcscience.net/Sellke-Bayarri-Berger-calibration-of-P-2001.pdf which explains how.  A p value of .05 works out to mean that you are rejecting a true null hypothesis (or seeing something in the data that isn't there) 23-50% of the time.  Rejecting a true null hypothesis is an error, 23-50% of the time is the rate at which you'll make that error for the p value of .05.  The p value therefore tells you quite a bit about the error rate.

All that said, it's sort of irrelevant to Greger's message anyway, which pushes veganism.  The study compares vegetarians to people who eat meat.  Vegetarianism is not veganism, the two diets are quite different.  This seems self evident, but you appear to have conflated the two several times already in your posts.

FWIW, I do not feel attacked in any way by this conversation.  If anything, I feel that I'm the one doing the attacking and would like to thank anyone who has been offended by my comments for their patience with me.

I'll respond to the rest of your comments when I get more free time.

I am aware of the Sellke et al calibration of p values to estimate error rates. However, their work was in regard to precise hypotheses in which the plausibility of the alternative hypothesis is negligible. In this case, you can't use the p value to estimate the error rate because of the fact that the plausibility of the alternative hypothesis from the outset of the study is very real. There is a weight of evidence given from other studies as well as the fact that there are mechanisms of action that are known that give weight to the possibility of such a hypothesis. Sellke's estimates are only valid under precise hypothesis where you're essentially trying to invalidate a null hypothesis that has no real-world data to back up an alternative hypothesis.

I agree that if this were the only study we were arguing over, then we'd be dealing with error rates in the realm of 26-50% as you say. But to make a claim that the study has an error rate of 26-50% based on its P value all while ignoring the other mountain of evidence out in the scientific medical community does a great disservice to the statistics that are being presented. This is why it is so crucial to never treat any one study in isolation and to always look at the greater evidence.

All that said, it's sort of irrelevant to Greger's message anyway, which pushes veganism.  The study compares vegetarians to people who eat meat.  Vegetarianism is not veganism, the two diets are quite different.  This seems self evident, but you appear to have conflated the two several times already in your posts.

I agree that it is irrelevant to argue about the P value for the reason that I stated above. It is irrelevant because of the fact that the mountain of evidence in the medical literature that shows that eating a plant-based diet not only prevents disease, but can reverse disease. In essence, what Dr. Greger is effectively trying to advocate for is that our null hypothesis in nutrition research should be that a whole foods plant-based diet should be the null hypothesis that all future nutrition research is based on. He is effectively stating that until someone can prove that eating broccoli causes heart disease, then the optimal diet for health and the prevention of disease should be one that consists of whole plant-based foods. Unfortunately, the vast amount of nutritional research doesn't operate under this premise which is why it is difficult to sift through research that isn't conducted fairly or appropriately.

This is what I don't understand. There is a mountain of evidence that shows biological mechanisms of action regarding the onset of disease and meat intake. There are statistically significant studies that show that the less meat you eat, the better the health outcomes. There are meta-analyses that show the combined effort of these studies giving enough weight to these statistical outcomes to remove sampling errors. Yet, with all this, we still operate under the assumption that an "optimal diet" is some "grey area" diet that is "well balanced" to include food from all sources, whether it is from animals or plants. This is what I find baffling.

It isn't that I don't think someone can live a life eating 1 steak meal a week and be completely healthy and live to 100 without any problems. That isn't what I am trying to say and if you want to live you're life like that, for all intents and purposes you'll likely live a life free from America's top killers. What I am trying to say is that the optimal diet (meaning a linear progression toward the lowest occurrence of preventable disease) should be seen as a whole foods plant-based diet. Until that becomes our null hypothesis, then statistics will continue to be abused to say otherwise much like it was before "smoking causes lung disease" became our null hypothesis when conducting studies related to cigarettes.

[KCalla]

This is a great thread.  I've enjoyed reading so many well considered posts.  Many points worth considering.  Some things I haven't thought about,  some ideas to consider from a new direction.   Makes me ask myself which of the mentioned and self-owned points I attribute to the mental "columns" I use: labels like  "science", "religion/belief", "ethics",  "preference", etc., and how much relative value those "columns" have for me.    I appreciate those who have posted.  It is always worthwhile for me to reflect on alternate points of view and different positions of knowledge. 

[mm1970]

What I am trying to say is that the optimal diet (meaning a linear progression toward the lowest occurrence of preventable disease) should be seen as a whole foods plant-based diet.

But doesn't that mean you are extrapolating?  Extrapolating is risky. Assuming the relationships are linear is risky.  What if it's an asymptote?  And of course, what if *other* poor health outcomes result?

And when you are talking about it being the "optimal diet", I assume you mean while supplementing with B12, iron, Vit D, DHA, or whatever else is missing? (Assuming it will depend on the person).

[lifeanon269]

What I am trying to say is that the optimal diet (meaning a linear progression toward the lowest occurrence of preventable disease) should be seen as a whole foods plant-based diet.

But doesn't that mean you are extrapolating?  Extrapolating is risky. Assuming the relationships are linear is risky.  What if it's an asymptote?  And of course, what if *other* poor health outcomes result?

And when you are talking about it being the "optimal diet", I assume you mean while supplementing with B12, iron, Vit D, DHA, or whatever else is missing? (Assuming it will depend on the person).

No, extrapolating is estimating beyond any given data set. We have data sets that include cohorts that consist of individuals that consumed a plant-based diet. That is were we've seen the evidence that disease can be prevented and even reversed. The evidence is linear in the sense that even among those who eat just a little bit of meat can further improve their health outcomes by cutting out meat from their diet altogether. That was my point.

B12 is the only vitamin specific to the exclusion of meat in the diet that needs to be supplemented. Supplementation of B12 is only necessary because of the fact that fruits and vegetables today come to us so clean at the supermarket. B12 is actually only synthesized by bacteria and archaea. The animals we eat get their B12 from eating the plants directly from the soil where these bacteria reside.

Vitamin D deficiency is found amongst meat-eaters just as much as it is amongst vegans.

Iron deficiency is no more prevalent in those who avoid meat than in those who eat meat. There is actually evidence that heme-iron found in animal foods can be harmful to health and that a better source of iron would be from plant sources without those side-effects (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24243555).

I agree that we shouldn't ignore other poor health outcomes that may come about from consuming a plant-based diet. However, in the face of evidence that a majority of America's top 10 killers are attributable to diet, then it is important we don't let other possible health outcomes overshadow the ultimate benefit just because we may favor one diet over the other personally. I'd love for there to be a day where America's top killer is a few cases of vitamin B12 deficiency because of people improperly attempting a plant-based diet instead of the millions that die every decade from heart disease.

Personally, I am vegan, but I don't eat a whole foods plant-based diet often enough to put myself in the category is disease prevention. However, that doesn't stop me from understanding that if I wanted to prevent these diseases, there is a clear direction in which I should move my diet.

[Sailor Sam]

Personally, I am vegan, but I don't eat a whole foods plant-based diet often enough to put myself in the category is disease prevention. However, that doesn't stop me from understanding that if I wanted to prevent these diseases, there is a clear direction in which I should move my diet.

And yet, people on the paleo side of the divide also believe their moving in a clear direction to prevent disease. They also have studies to back their belief. Their studies, and the gurus interpreting them for mass understanding, also suffer from having an agenda.

You've chosen your path, and I ain't here to debate it or fling poo at you. There's legitimate data leaning towards veganism. But there is also legitimate data leaning towards being an omnivore. The science of nutrition is young, and we're ALL flailing around in the dark, relying on assumptions, anecdata, and heuristics. You just kinda have to choose, and if it makes you feel good then stick with it. Then attempt to avoid thinking you've found the exact solution for everyone.

The last step is hard. I struggle with it, across many different life choices. It's just super tempting to think we've found the One True Path. It seems to be part of being human. Someone should conduct a study...!   

[lifeanon269]

And yet, people on the paleo side of the divide also believe their moving in a clear direction to prevent disease. They also have studies to back their belief. Their studies, and the gurus interpreting them for mass understanding, also suffer from having an agenda.

You've chosen your path, and I ain't here to debate it or fling poo at you. There's legitimate data leaning towards veganism. But there is also legitimate data leaning towards being an omnivore. The science of nutrition is young, and we're ALL flailing around in the dark, relying on assumptions, anecdata, and heuristics. You just kinda have to choose, and if it makes you feel good then stick with it. Then attempt to avoid thinking you've found the exact solution for everyone.

The last step is hard. I struggle with it, across many different life choices. It's just super tempting to think we've found the One True Path. It seems to be part of being human. Someone should conduct a study...!

I'm an open-minded person. It may not be immediately apparent after reading my posts vehemently defending a whole foods plant-based diet. But, for a majority of my life I've been an omnivore, so it takes an open-minded person to put their lifestyle through a drastic change like that. I suspect most people on this board are open-minded individuals seeing as how we're all mustachians living in a consumerist society.

I'm an analytical person and as such, I enjoy analyzing what different studies say about different things regardless of what conclusions they draw. As much as I am defending Dr. Greger's work, I don't just seclude myself to only reading studies that he promotes. I read books on nutrition regardless of their apparent aim.

As such, I do stay up to date on studies that others publish, even Loren Corain (Paleo Diet founder). Taking some of the studies directly off his website (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/08/12/ajcn.115.113613.long), they show the benefits of the paleo diet in comparison to other diets. However, the diets they compare it to are not anywhere close to a whole foods plant-based diet. As I said previously, until we get to a point where our null hypothesis is that the optimal diet for health is a whole foods plant-based diet, we will always have fad diets that grab media's attention. We will always have studies that show the "benefits" of any particular diet because the diets they are comparing to are far from health promoting diets themselves. Nutritional studies are often designed relative to control groups that fail to create a baseline appropriate for guiding public health toward optimal disease prevention. That's why we end up having discussions like this in the first place. The Taiwanese study I linked to earlier was a good example of the comparison of diets very close to a "paleo" diet, yet when compared to a whole foods plant-based diet, they didn't fair as well. I think more studies that directly compare some diets of all kinds a certainly needed such as this study (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182351). Even this study concluded the fact that "If Paleolithic eating is loosely interpreted to mean a diet based mostly on meat, no meaningful interpretation of health effects is possible."

If everyone adopted a paleo diet that consumed more whole plant foods, we'd have drastically lower outcomes of disease in our country. That's absolutely a good thing. Instead of having over 600,000 heart disease deaths a year, we could have say 300,000 with the adoption of such a paleo diet. But I happen to think we can do better. After all, the only diet to ever be shown to actually reverse heart disease is a whole foods plant-based one.

There are some things that I really think we need more studies on and where there may be some cross-over between the paleo groups and whole plant food groups. For example, some petri dish studies suggest permeability of the intestine when introduced to gluten (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/7/3/1565/htm#fig_body_display_nutrients-07-01565-f002). This study was taken from the paleo website as well. However, the cohort they used for the study were all individuals that had originally gone in for intestinal biopsies related to potential IBS issues. As such, even their control group of individuals that was said to not have any gluten sensitivities could simply have contained a skewed number of individuals that were undiagnosed. Afterall, they had gastrointestinal problems that led them to get biopsies in the first place. Furthermore, testing for intestinal permeability in a petri dish is vastly different from the permeability that might be experienced within or bodies among the presence of a great number of gut flora and other bodily responses such as IL-10 secretion. I'd like to see more studies involving proper control groups consisting of people without any prior gastrointestinal symptoms. Additionally, there are studies like this that are released that indicate a possible connection between gluten intolerance and glyphosate herbicide (http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/food-policy/gluten-intolerance-from-roundup-herbicide-zw0z1402zkin#axzz2wvVu0Oy7). That could indicate that a large number of individuals who are gluten sensitive could likely be so simply because of herbicide usage. Finally, there are epidemiological studies that show that eating whole grains are protective against disease (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19079919). Until we see a greater number of epidemiological studies that show the opposite, then the best advice is likely to avoid whole grains if you're diagnosed with an intolerance to it and to stick with organic sources of whole grains to avoid potentially dangerous chemicals. This demonstrates fairly that the choice must be made by the individual, but at the same time we can give guidelines to the general public that are appropriately informative. This is exactly what I am advocating.

I don't mean to get into long debates (essentially with myself, lol) such as that, but I do so merely to point out that I do conduct a fair thought process.

I find it funny that you criticize the analytical discussion up to this point regarding the nutritional studies and yet conclude your post with the idea that we should conduct a study. I understand it was tongue-in-cheek, but what good does it do for public health if our nutritional sciences aren't analyzed properly? That is all I've done up to this point. As long as things don't get personal, I'm all for a good analytical discussion. Finally, I just want to make it clear that while my constant defense may seem like I have an agenda, my only agenda is to treat all information fairly and analytically. As such, if information is presented, regardless of its conclusion, I will read it, understand it, and in the end weigh it appropriately against all other information available.

What you won't see me do is use anecdotal information as justification for informing the general public that "moderation" is ultimately best course of action. Moderation is not a good guideline. It only leads to confusion since we all have our own ideas on what moderation is.

[Dicey]

Every time I see this thread, my head screams "Who cares?" and "Why should it matter?" and "Why is this thread four freaking pages long now?"

[sol]

Every time I see this thread, my head screams "Who cares?" and "Why should it matter?" and "Why is this thread four freaking pages long now?"

Don't be upset.  Some people are very concerned about what other people are putting in their mouths.

[Huskie87]

Thought about this thread while reading this article today.  Not trying to discourage the debate/conversation, just found it interesting.

http://qz.com/869587/using-science-in-an-argument-just-makes-people-more-partisan/

[lifeanon269]

Thought about this thread while reading this article today.  Not trying to discourage the debate/conversation, just found it interesting.

http://qz.com/869587/using-science-in-an-argument-just-makes-people-more-partisan/

Thanks for the article. Interesting read. Personally, for me I don't care about anyone's personal beliefs or motives. They're irrelevant. If you come to a debate with your own backed up reasoning and present them in a fair manner without any personal attacks, then I welcome the discussion. Many of my best friends have completely different political beliefs than me. I understand some people are turned off by such discussions though. If any one is of that sort, then I simply suggest moving on rather than suggesting that the discussion cease.