The Veganism Thread

[HDW]

 

Only n c**t like Piers Morgan will try and pretend a sausage roll is healthy though.

[HDW]

I think the 'ham' in the 'hamburger' is probably more etymologically invariant, but never mind. Likewise with sausage... If there is no offal involved you may as well call it a vegwinkle

 

Doesn't the Ham in Hamburger refer to the fact that is is from Hamburg? I think "hamburger" literally means "from Hamburg" or something like that, but I stand erected. 

[Odinson]

Only n c**t like Piers Morgan will try and pretend a sausage roll is healthy though.

 

His petulant trolling has been an absolute boon for Gregg's. They've now (sausage) rolled it out to all 1800 outlets and it's selling out the whole time. 

 

That being said, apparently (this is what the rumour mill is churning out) Piers Morgan and Gregg's are both represented by the same PR firm and some have speculated a coordinated campaign.

[Odinson]

Vegan Docs

 

No I still have my original ones. When they die I'll consider this20190110_203306.jpg

 

Seen these, but I just can't get on board with the styling. I'm just not cool enough to pull it off. 

[Odinson]

Just found that the Impossibke Burger is here in SA, but at 90 ZAR per 110g patty, I sure ain't gonna buy one any time soon.

 

Going to start experimenting with chickpeas and other veggies for a burger patty

 

Quite surprising they're available for sale to consumers via stores, as in the US you can currently only get them in restaurants. 

 

I wouldn't expect an imported food like that to be cheap in SA though. 

 

I'll post some bean burger recipes here over the weekend. 

[Patchelicious]

Plus, strictly speaking Veganism has nothing to do with personal health. It has to do with ethics.

 

you get fat vegans.

 

Like any food, too many calories and not enough movement equals fat.

 

THANK YOU!! Somebody said it.

 

The ethical argument for veganism is a solid one, it has some grey areas, but all in all its pretty good and very easy to get people to buy into it.

 

But when we start trying to garnish that with carbon footprint reduction and health arguments, simply to try and bolster the ethical point, you actually dilute your argument.

 

Many of the "veganism" is the healthiest diet arguments and articles unravel when put under the same scrutiny and parameter that the pro meat articles go through on vegan threads.... who's funding it, who wrote it etc etc

 

The "well veganism will save the planet" argument is the same as Trump's "the wall will stop illegal immigration" argument. It will help, it alone wont save the planet. Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, if the motivation was to save the planet, there are more effective methods of reducing your carbon foot print that just going vegan. 

 

So lets cut the the BS, if your goal is to save animals, I get that, I respect that and I understand it. Rule one of selling an idea, when you have agreement, stop selling!

[Odinson]

THANK YOU!! Somebody said it.

 

The ethical argument for veganism is a solid one, it has some grey areas, but all in all its pretty good and very easy to get people to buy into it.

 

But when we start trying to garnish that with carbon footprint reduction and health arguments, simply to try and bolster the ethical point, you actually dilute your argument.

 

Many of the "veganism" is the healthiest diet arguments and articles unravel when put under the same scrutiny and parameter that the pro meat articles go through on vegan threads.... who's funding it, who wrote it etc etc

 

The "well veganism will save the planet" argument is the same as Trump's "the wall will stop illegal immigration" argument. It will help, it alone wont save the planet. Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture, if the motivation was to save the planet, there are more effective methods of reducing your carbon foot print that just going vegan. 

 

So lets cut the the BS, if your goal is to save animals, I get that, I respect that and I understand it. Rule one of selling an idea, when you have agreement, stop selling!

 

Veganism is a moral and ethical philosophy, which extends to diet. Our consumption of animals is the greatest exploitation that they suffer at our hands. 

 

Now, eating a plant-based diet is an element of veganism, but doesn't encompass the entire spectrum of the philosophy. You can be plant-based, but still go watch greyhound racing or buy a mink coat. The health element of a plant-based diet, I believe, is important to promote for the following reasons: 1) There is a mountain of evidence that the more whole plant foods you eat, the better your health outcomes will be. I do agree that one should apply healthy skepticism, but we should also not become so jaded by a culture of 'fake news' that we dismiss proper science; 2) Whenever someone goes plant-based, they eliminate from their footprint their largest contribution to animal suffering; 3) The more people eat plant-based, the more the environment changes (more demand = more supply) and the easier it becomes for people to eat this way; 4) the environmental benefits (see below); 5) There are many people who simply do not give a flyingfuck about animals and will never change their habits for ethical considerations. If they go plant-based for health, they reduce their contribution, even if it is for purely selfish reasons. Asking people to act altruistically is a very tall mountain to climb. 

 

Regarding the environmental benefits, it has been proven by numerous studies that it's the biggest reducer that Joe Soap can make to his carbon footprint. There are many big polluters that we, as an individual, simply can't change. So, change what you can - the stuff you put in your gob. 

 

Like with any social movement, there needs to be pragmatism. Simply asking people to care about animals, sadly enough, will not cut it. 

[Odinson]

*trigger warning for keto folks*

 

Here's some more science (not a 'vegan' study, but shows the benefits of eating plants)

 

Published in The Lancet 

 

Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

 

 

 

Summary

Background

Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses explaining the relationship between carbohydrate quality and health have usually examined a single marker and a limited number of clinical outcomes. We aimed to more precisely quantify the predictive potential of several markers, to determine which markers are most useful, and to establish an evidence base for quantitative recommendations for intakes of dietary fibre.

Methods

We did a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prospective studies published from database inception to April 30, 2017, and randomised controlled trials published from database inception to Feb 28, 2018, which reported on indicators of carbohydrate quality and non-communicable disease incidence, mortality, and risk factors. Studies were identified by searches in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and by hand searching of previous publications. We excluded prospective studies and trials reporting on participants with a chronic disease, and weight loss trials or trials involving supplements. Searches, data extraction, and bias assessment were duplicated independently. Robustness of pooled estimates from random-effects models was considered with sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, dose-response testing, and subgroup analyses. The GRADE approach was used to assess quality of evidence.

Findings

Just under 135 million person-years of data from 185 prospective studies and 58 clinical trials with 4635 adult participants were included in the analyses. Observational data suggest a 15–30% decrease in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when comparing the highest dietary fibre consumers with the lowest consumers Clinical trials show significantly lower bodyweight, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol when comparing higher with lower intakes of dietary fibre. Risk reduction associated with a range of critical outcomes was greatest when daily intake of dietary fibre was between 25 g and 29 g. Dose-response curves suggested that higher intakes of dietary fibre could confer even greater benefit to protect against cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal and breast cancer. Similar findings for whole grain intake were observed. Smaller or no risk reductions were found with the observational data when comparing the effects of diets characterised by low rather than higher glycaemic index or load. The certainty of evidence for relationships between carbohydrate quality and critical outcomes was graded as moderate for dietary fibre, low to moderate for whole grains, and low to very low for dietary glycaemic index and glycaemic load. Data relating to other dietary exposures are scarce.

Interpretation

Findings from prospective studies and clinical trials associated with relatively high intakes of dietary fibre and whole grains were complementary, and striking dose-response evidence indicates that the relationships to several non-communicable diseases could be causal. Implementation of recommendations to increase dietary fibre intake and to replace refined grains with whole grains is expected to benefit human health. A major strength of the study was the ability to examine key indicators of carbohydrate quality in relation to a range of non-communicable disease outcomes from cohort studies and randomised trials in a single study. Our findings are limited to risk reduction in the population at large rather than those with chronic disease.

Funding

Health Research Council of New Zealand, WHO, Riddet Centre of Research Excellence, Healthier Lives National Science Challenge, University of Otago, and the Otago Southland Diabetes Research Trust.

 

Conclusion: eat your whole grains and enjoy that fiber! 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

*trigger warning for keto folks*

 

Here's some more science (not a 'vegan' study, but shows the benefits of eating plants)

 

Published in The Lancet 

 

Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

 

 

Conclusion: eat your whole grains and enjoy that fiber! 

No, the conclusion is that quality carbohydrate sources are better than shaite carbohydrate sources. IE those carbs with more fibre > those carbs with less fibre

 

But yes, if you eat carbs, eat the good ones. 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Captain Fatbastard Mayhem

[Odinson]

No, the conclusion is that quality carbohydrate sources are better than shaite carbohydrate sources. IE those carbs with more fibre > those carbs with less fibre

 

But yes, if you eat carbs, eat the good ones. 

 

When you actually open the study you'll see this: 

 

 

Added value of this study

We did a systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective

studies and clinical trials reporting on the relationship between

the most widely studied indicators of carbohydrate quality

(ie, dietary fibre, whole grains or pulses, dietary glycaemic

index, or glycaemic load) and mortality and incidence of a wide

range of non-communicable diseases and their risk factors.

Parallel consideration of prospective studies and clinical trials

has enabled an exploration of the extent to which changes in

cardiometabolic risk factors associated with altering intake of

dietary carbohydrate align with the effect of carbohydrate

quality on disease risk observed in the prospective studies.

Dose-response curves were generated and the benefits from

different amounts of total dietary fibre were calculated.

The approach recommended by the GRADE Working Group has

been used to assess the quality of evidence and the importance

of the observed associations that influence confidence in

nutrition recommendations.

 

Implications of all the available evidence

The complementary findings from prospective studies and clinical

trials, which show that higher intakes of dietary fibre or whole

grains are associated with a reduction in the risk of mortality and

incidence of a wide range of non-communicable diseases and

their risk factors, provide convincing evidence for nutrition

recommendations to replace refined grains with whole grains and

increase dietary fibre to at least 25–29 g per day, with additional

benefits likely to accrue with greater intakes. Considering current

evidence, dietary glycaemic index or glycaemic load might be less

useful as overall measures of carbohydrate quality than dietary

fibre and whole grain content.

 

So, ja, what are they saying? Get carbs from 'whole' sources - grains especially, and not processed crap. 

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

When you actually open the study you'll see this:

 

 

So, ja, what are they saying? Get carbs from 'whole' sources - grains especially, and not processed crap.

Yeah, I read it. Confirmed that good carb sources are better than bad ones. Doesn't say keto is bad. Edited January 11, 2019 by Captain Fatbastard Mayhem

[Thor Buttox]

Doesn't the Ham in Hamburger refer to the fact that is is from Hamburg? I think "hamburger" literally means "from Hamburg" or something like that, but I stand erected.

Don't confuse a good story with some random fact, my good man.

[Chris_]

Yeah, I read it. Confirmed that good carb sources are better than bad ones. Doesn't say keto is bad.

 

I'm pretty sure the keto comment was meant in (underhanded) jest

[Odinson]

I'm pretty sure the keto comment was meant in (underhanded) jest

 

Say what?

[Wayne Potgieter]

Bwaaa haaa haaa.

 

New favourite cookbook.

 

Not for sensitive readers.

 

[Pieter1]

Just checking in.

 

How's folks' Reductionuary and Veganuary going?

I had my first vegeterian burger yesterday. It was actually not bad. I would rather have a salad tho. The idea is something to get used to. My brain still expected mince.