This is the power of veganism

>And vegetarians are 100% more likely to be weak little bitches with no strength or endurance
If they have the insane notion that not eating meat means they can more than compensate with dairy and eggs then yes they're worse off

confusing correlation with causation again.

I bet you went to an american college and not a real one didn't you.

>Continuing claiming shit without a shred of evidence

Lol it's almost like you are desperately trying to defend something you know is indefensible :^)

And gravity is just correlated to mass.

Lol.
>In this small sample size of 300 people we see an increase in dementia risk among meat eaters
>In the sample size of 3000 however there is negligible difference

The second one us UNmatched, meaning people of different ages, living conditions and sexes are compared. Very unreliable, the 300 one is age, sex and zip code matched subjects, giving a much more accurate picture.

Former vegetarian and vegan here. I don't gaf about saving animals - I had digestive issues and family history of ulcerative colitis, so I've experimented with diet a lot.

My strength and endurance were fine as a vegetarian. I still ate lots of dairy, especially eggs.
As a vegan, I felt sharper, but I lost a fuckload of strength and my endurance was shit. That's why I gave it up.
I properly supplemented on both diets. My wife's a dietitian and helped me to plan my meals. The only positives about being a vegan were clarity of mind and getting shredded af without trying.

Fwiw, my digestive issues cleared up when I finally excluded coffee and artificial sweeteners from my diet. It was entirely clean other than that. I may be responsible for the death of those poor animals, but I'm helping to save the lives of an untold number of coffee plants.

There is absolutely no reason you would lose strength and endurance on a vegan diet unless you were eating an inadequate diet in general.

The sad attempt of rhetorical redefinition is sad. Corpes=dead human body l, carcass=dead animal body.

If you have to rely on inaccurate word play to be convincing then you've lost the logic battle already.

There's a reason vegans tend to be frail and skinny fat, and why it's popular among women who have no interest in being strong or muscular. Vegan "men" think like women, I'm in no way surprised that there's crossover between the vegan community and the trans community.

If you think that dictionaries dictate the meaning of words, you have lost the battle of ideas already. Take a basic course in semantics.

And if you think that using corpse in an anthroperipheral form is somehow logically incorrect you need to take a course in logic too.

how do vegan men "think like women"
at least give an example because that sounds absurd

Okay. What do cows eat to grow that big? They have shittons of muscles... You know it. Grass. Chlorophyll is very nutritious if you can digest or break apart cellulose, we got mixers for that. What do gorillas eat? Lot of vegetarians are also puccibois but that's just correlation, not causation.

t. weak vegan

The only reason people go vegan is because they are emotionally oriented -- like women -- and don't want to eat meat because of their fee-fees.

And just like women they do not have the strength of character to improve their bodies or minds. They are weak-willed followers of the mainstream.

Don't think there is anything more manly than being fully rational, following the logic, and making choises for yourself despite what society as a whole thinks.

Don't think it's very manly to give in to societal conditioning because your parents shoved meat, cow tit milk and chicken ovulations into your mouth as a kid. Not very manly to not being able to think for yourself, not making your own choices, being irrational following "muh feelies" and pumping your muscles to look like a man but being a child in your head. You can build muscle on a vegan diet anyways so you are both dumb, unethical and a pussy.

Source?
>vegan
>mainstream
Pick one
Also you need more willpower to change your diet than to stay the same.
You seem to appeal to emotions instead of thinking clearly, associating vegans to women/pussies to play on their insecurities. Like a weak, angsty troll desperately reaching for an emotional response to spice up their dull, meaningless life.

...

I can do strict muscle ups and 8 one arm pull ups. I am a rock climber so I think I would embarass you in anything body weight related.

Thank you for providing an example of meat-eater dementia

Yes, but the same article implies correlation not causation... There's biologically no mechanism to explain this phenomena. Perhaps people who look after their diet are less likely to be demented, less likely to get heart disease, etc? Not a big surprise to me, IMO. If people were more aware of their diets and bodies and did something about it, even if they continued eating meat, would you say these numbers would be the same?

Veganism is a part of the mainstream hipster movement.

The only reason that they are able to modify their diet is that they are conforming to the larger group. The apparent "willpower" of the vegan is an illusion. They have the power of the group behind them, you see; All their friends are at the very least vegetarian, so they have to be such too. From being a vegetarian, it is not a long jump to veganism. And they do not take that jump by conscious choice, but by the emotional impulse of strengthening their bond to the peer group. That is: the fear of judgment and rejection.

That just means saner people with lower risks of dementia, even ignoring genetic factors, eat vegan/vegetarian?
Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment teeth, jaws, and digestive system favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets."

And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." The chart below compares the anatomy of man with that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.

When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Veganism is only correlated with hipster culture. I am vegetarian and rarely I meet somebody vegetarian or vegan, about 1 in 300. And the hipsters you're talking about are most likely the college liberal echo chambers.

if a not indoctrinated child which haven't been told he is a pussy if he care about animals see apple or chicken leg which one he eat? Apple, of course

Carnivore animals never invented abattoirs either, man. Humans can't be measured by the same standards as animals thanks to the neocortex. Stop it.

They've taken all of those things into consideration and still found vegans to be overall healthier with less disease.

POWER OF CARNISM:
> chemotherapy.jpg
> expensive hospital bills.png
> happy merchant.gif

here's a good pic

I see how not being a literal tiger has stopped humans from being able to consume meat

for millenia man had not abbatoirs or refrigerators, meat was possibly a opportunity food taken from especially fresh corpses. Man evolved herbivore.

Good one. (you)

Is correlation=/=causation a dumb people meme? First of all correlation is not meaningless, secondly correlation when done carefully enough IMPLIES a causal relationshit. Why do people who have never actually looked into a subject always blurt out this like a tic?

>There's biologically no mechanism to explain this phenomena.

The second most common type of dementia, after alzheimers, is vascular dementia which is litterally the same process as clogging of the heart arteries. Do I really have to explain the "biological mechanism" that relates diet to this process? Alzheimer itself has connections to diet.

Lets just start looking for this " biologically no mechanism":

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22614926
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22836704
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23517914
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20213540
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12658281
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15797830
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21388893
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361923011001870
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22884479
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9600988
sunarc.org/JAD97.pdf
academic.oup.com/aje/article/159/10/959/182084/Midlife-Dietary-Intake-of-Antioxidants-and-Risk-of

CONT.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480752
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23813612
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/63661
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21388893
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24489130
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23239205
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20695015
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15699381
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19720973
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23204143
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24037034
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12214119
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8327020
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7984357
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480742
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12417349
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18515635
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17510445
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19171835
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21775213
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480752
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11571339
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20173340
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9329686
science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5542/508.summary
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9549720
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20684749
content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-disease/jad00094
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24224133
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22474137
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24378418
jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=187436
jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/187436
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20547887
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22583954
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167850
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291218

Open these in tabs, one by one, to stop being such a tool that pretends to know what he is talking about. "biologically no mechanism to explain this phenomena" kek....

And then, after becoming perfectly suited to being vegan, we invented abattoirs and refrigerators and giant saws for cutting chickens' heads off anyway.

We don't just mindlessly follow our limbic brains, user. People eat meat because we evolved to be capable of choosing to. Different rules apply.

True,we are meant to be vegan

we are capable of suiciding, is that normal?
Also, just because some person did it does not mean it is the optimal choice. Like with evolution. If I was God we could eat dirt, have no refractory period, fully myelinized nerves from head to toe, teeth would be unified and unable to degenerate, and we'd have multiple hearts.

Whether its normal or not is irrelevant. You're arguing what we evolved to do. If somebody has schizophrenia and kills themselves, then they were simply acting according to their nature.
Just as we evolved to decide whether we eat meat or not. Having the choice is natural to us.

Whether something is the optimal choice depends on what your goal is and what you're working with. I'd never recommend a hungry skelly tries to build mass on a vegan diet, for example. It'll be a lot more difficult and most will give up before seeing real results.

Again, humanity can't be judged purely on their physical attributes because our behaviour isn't shaped purely by them. There are factors unique to humans at play here.

Those are quite a few good links there. God, do you really want us to go through all of this?

youtube.com/watch?v=yRELldIuZyM
sciencemag.org/news/2014/04/did-europeans-get-fat-neandertals
nature.com/news/baseball-players-reveal-how-humans-evolved-to-throw-so-well-1.13281
phys.org/news/2013-06-chimps-humans-baseball-pitcher.html
youtube.com/watch?v=1y__4xX8xp8

LOL

the thing that most equalists fear most is "averages" time, at which your body can change. DNA simply doesnt change overnight, it takes a long time of selection for one process, with the help of something else, to transform into something else. That is why we are having such hard trouble in keeping civilizations upright. Many things really that work on these old and slow adaptations. Foods are one of them.

It's not necessary, of course there are biological mechanisms that can explain the differences in congnitive decline between omnivorous and vegan diets. The links are just to show how stupid it is so deny this.

Most of these links require a better understanding of the bio chemistry and terminology of it all. But studies like this

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24037034

are pretty damning. So far some of the theorizing went

>increased sugar AND dietary fats are the reason why this happens
>maybe some racial reasons too?
>exercise may be an important factor too? (as most veganist studies have healthier than average participants who also do sports)

Egg consumption for example also raises HDL, though LDL a little bit more. Then there is the fact that most people, including scientists dont know what they are talking about, dont see the whole picture as they are primed in their little fuckwad area of specialization, or are funded by either sides, no sides or more.

Man what a mess. I bet one of you science faggots realized what a coolish place this could be for sparring and you made us mad so that we cared and helped you. Just because we hate it how obnoxious these veganists are.

Well its working. Though I am not at a genius level and am only at the basic level, to self taught amateur with bits and pieces from the whole story (that I should have been taught)

>Screwing over your progeny by eating an unsustainable diet is strength of will
Hey, at least you're good at mental gymnastics.

>the power of high weight low volume and roids

This armchair psychology

The vast majority of my friends are
>muh protein
carnists who continually get their minds blown by how I'm getting stronger, and they aren't.

>yes goy eating a plant based diet and not using an obnoxious amount of juice will totally help you not want to be a chick
>trust me I'm your greatest ally

>malnutrition turns you skinny
wew, who would've thought

>p=0.065
so not signifcant? Plus when the sample size was increased, there was an even more negligible effect?

kek'ing at you.

You have no clue how this works, do you? Stop proving that user's point, you uneducated fart.

What makes them want to become ugly women? That shit's beyond me

Kroc isn't vegan, you literal retard

Who knows
My point is that you don't have to be a vegan green goblin type to feel like a woman is 'trap'ped inside. As one can see, even a meat eating strong alpha gear loving type can feel like there is a hidden woman inside.

and then I read through things like this

perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07/serum-cholesterol-among-the-eskimos-and-inuit/

they seemed to have a high fat and high cholesterol diet and high mortality. But still, there was mention that they also adopted a western lifestyle for foods?

God. When I read some of the other research, even the pro vegan ones there was mention of those people who could tolerate dietary cholesterol much better than others. In most of these research things really.

No shit you stupid nigger

Nice try, bud. Linguist here. Using corpse in leiu of carcass to refer to dead animal bodies is a clear instance of rhetorical redefinition. Its not wrong to do, but it is a case of using appeals to pathos through pragmatics (not semantics) to influence opinion and perception.

I wrote that using corpse to refer to animals is an attempt to make eating animals akin to eating people which is obvously playing up emotions rather than logic.

But the case for not eating humans, ethically, is identical to the case for not eating animals. This is where you fail logically. You´re being inconsistent. Read the argument in pic related, the logic is solid and applies to both animals and humans since appealing to species is not a valid justification for not giving consideration to the interest of other sentient beings.

Except we do have parameters, plural. The assumption that there would only be a single moral reason to not eat an animal is fucking dumb. There are many reasons to not eat something.
It's too smart, it's too closely related, it is a long standing companion animal (dog and cat, don't name an animal you will slaughter).

What if that magical trait is morality? Animals don't have morality. Humans have vast societal institutions designed for humans to act outside of evolutionary interest.

The reason we chose to eat or not eat an animal is uniquely human.

Nice projecting faggot.

>It's too smart
Pigs are smarter than dogs and cats and run literal laps around humans in a brain death coma as well as some mentally disabled humans.
Since you wouldn't eat the latter, (lack of) intelligence can't be the reason you'd eat the former.
>it's too closely related
Not an argument for many reasons
1) "too" is not defined. Are chimps ok to eat? Are niggers, chinks and poos ok to eat?
2) assuming you answered no to the previous, isn't the best choice to eat what is furthest as a species from us? Plant have no veterbrae, brain, CNS, consciousness, sentience, anything of moral consideration. Pigs, cows and chickens have all of these.
3) bird pets and insects are less related to us than pigs and cows, yet we eat the latter which is a closer relative
4) as said, "species" is not a valid argument because it's axiomatic and arbitrary
>it is a long standing companion animal
Arbitrary. Who says dogs are not ok to eat?
>Us humans
Yes, but why?
>What if that magical trait is morality? Animals don't have morality. Humans have vast societal institutions designed for humans to act outside of evolutionary interest.
First of all you are conflating "moral value" with "moral agency" and labeling them both "morality".
Animals do have moral value. My "proof" is this entire post, where I deconstruct your arguments to show that animals deserve to get given the bare minimum moral value of living a free, non abusive, non exploited life and that not doing so is logically inconsistent.
About the part that animals aren't moral agents: that is true, but the following are also not moral agents: uncontacted tribes, mentally disabled people, people in a coma, toddlers, life convicts, psychopaths, sociopaths etc.
Also, pigs and cows are much more moral agents than iguanas and macaws, yet we eat the former and keep the latter as a pet. And don't get me started on insects.
>The reason we chose to eat or not eat an animal is uniquely human.
Is logically inconsistent*

hit character limit
>Humans have vast societal institutions designed for humans to act outside of evolutionary interest.
Exactly! We no longer need to eat meat, we are not on top of the food chain or a natural predator, he have grown way beyond evolution, we have the capacity to think, create food items that provide us all the nutrition we need and understand that we don't need to massacre billions of fellow sentient beings to thrive

Not him but I can do weighed dips with 100kg and pull ups with 60kg at a bw of 90kg. I'd like to see you try to out-bodyweight me, veggie cuck.

...

Kuntal Joisher is ... the second vegan to have climbed Mount Everest.[1] Dr. Atanas Skatov also makes this climb[2] as a vegan for 2014 ... He reached the summit on 19 May 2016.[6][7][8] Joisher was born in a vegetarian family in Mumbai, and became vegan in 2002.[9][10]
>Didn't gain strength as a meat eater
He is an alumnus of USC Viterbi, where he did his masters in Computer Science.
>STEM, not hippie humanitarian fag

But ok, you can do pullups.

> p=0.065
> p=0.048

wow it's fucking nothing

Not very hard when you weigh 80lbs

>were more than twice as likely
>as likely
Correlation does not imply causation. Unless you can describe exactly how one thing is caused a correlation means nothing as one thing can often have dozens of alternative explanations. Ignoring this little fact when it is convenient for one has a name: confirmation bias.

For instance, the main reason why vegans look so good in those fancy statistics you always bring up is not because it's comparing two different diets (omnivore vs vegetarian), but rather is comparing people who know absolutely nothing about nutrition and don't put any effort to freaks who are obsessed with nutrition to make their inferior diet work.

That is, the reason because the average person is not healthier than the vegan is because he doesn't even try and eats whatever he likes, while the vegan tries his hardest to meet his nutritional ends because he knows he has an inferior diet and has to do a lot of conscious effort not to go lacking on any nutrients.

tldr; the vegan is healthier DESPITE his veganism, not because of it.

>this is the power of calories in, calories out

here's what I don't understand - if people are not meant to eat meat, then why have we been doing it for tens of thousands of years? at some point before civilization, did humans just collectively decide "yeah lets starting eating this animal flesh on top of the berries and plants we have been eating"?

Humans are not meant to vaccinate or drive cars either yet here we are

I knew I'd get that response. I wasn't trying to argue that eating meat is natural and that's why we should eat it. I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't make sense that humans and their special ancestors have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years. I see the argument from vegans often that eating meat is not natural.

All protein is initially made by plants.
Plants are loaded with protein.
Meat and Dairy causes cancer.
These are facts. The more you dispute and disbelieve, the more of you are killed off by these diseases which makes the top men very happy. Population control has never been more successful that in this day and age.

It did make sense back in the day when we didn't live past 40 and didn't have such a unbelievable insane high demand for meat. We human's done a lot of weird shit like imagine the first person drinking cow milk... Probably just early humans being curious about stuff which eventually ended up to where we are today.

>2017
>still not vegan

I thought its obvious by now.. only rednecks and stupid people are not vegan.

>Implying

Post a body pic then ya faggot. I know that (you) are a vegan and because of that (you) are a dyel little bitch

Wrong person replied to

THIS IS THE POWER OF MEAT

FEE FI FO FUM EAT THINE FLESH OR RUN

...

Gorillas eat insects, honey and even other, smaller monkeys.

Are all these studies thst vegans post, about people who exclusivly eat red meats?

Im pre sure balamced diet with cardio and weight training makes you the goat

Kek Veganism is mostly a diet for people trying to lose weight. Has fuck all to do with muh ethics. it's just something they use to sound morally superior

Literally every vegan person I've seen is a fat fuck trying to lose weight or someone with acne trying to cut diary out of their diet

You can't be vegan if you're trying to build muscle
unless you're a manlet with low macros

>other sentient being
>animals
>sentient
3/10 you tried

Weird how the AHS2 didn't find any statistically significant differences in deaths from neurodegenerative disease when compared to their corpse munching brethren

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/table/T5/

faggot

what does p-0.06 mean?

I want to become literate too

>Implying animals are not sentient
0/10 you didn't even try
Before shitting out a reply, Google what sentient means

We don't even know if the amyloid beta plaques are as a result of the disease or in response to the disease. All drug trials which clear the plaques do not halt progression of the disease. There is even mechanistic data for HSV1 being a causal agent in the Alzheimer's. Copy and pasting links from youtube videos doesn't make you smarter than researchers who have spent decades trying to figure out the disease haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg.

Google what is p value and don't drop out of school again, or don't study something that isn't STEM

There's a 6% chance the data is not statistically significant