The exact same argument could be made about there being no need to eat vegetables or fruit; carnivore diet isn’t healthy, but it won’t literally kill you. To be clear I’m not making that argument personally though, vegan diet is less unhealthy than carnivore diet obviously.
The exact same argument can be made by anyone profoundly ignorant, sure. Not you, of course. Right? The scientific evidence about a “carnivore diet” is close to zero, it’s a joke. It’s like the scientific evidence concerning an “all cheese diet” or an “all snickers diet”. You don’t get to declare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation here.
Too much red meat can be bad for you, but that is not the ame statement as any at all is bad for you.
Animal flesh, meat, is presented by carnivores as a necessary and vital nutrient. If one used that ketone fueled brain harder, one would understand that the science proves that it’s not.
The trend for meat consumption is bad for long-term health in the science. The trend for plant consumption, especially whole foods, is good for long-term health in the science. Do you understand what this dose-response aspect is?
You’re literally arguing for some “low dose” case for meat, and that itself is a counter-argument against eating meat. Animal flesh isn’t some rare vitamin in a dose so small that it fits between your teeth, it is consumed in large chunks of mass, supposedly filling up your stomach. Some people consume some bits of organs of animals, especially as health supplements, hoping to get health boosts; they’re fools and it’s a scam, but that’s a “low dose” situation of animal consumption. With meat, muscle and adipose tissue is what we’re referring to, and that is sold by larger mass units of measurements, something that matches the volumes of our stomachs.
When you argue for a low dose of what some people consider a staple, you’re already accepting that it’s not necessary.
But i also know you’ve heard this countless times and will just hit back with “but I don’t eat meat and I’m healthy!!!”
Really? Countless? I literally know 1 other vegan and 1 vegetarian. My anecdote cancels yours.
The exact same argument can be made by anyone profoundly ignorant, sure. Not you, of course. Right? The scientific evidence about a “carnivore diet” is close to zero, it’s a joke. It’s like the scientific evidence concerning an “all cheese diet” or an “all snickers diet”. You don’t get to declare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation here.
Low doses usually have low effects. But you don’t know the maximum dose either, you’re just doing the “the truth is somewhere in the middle” pseudoscience shtick.
Animal flesh, meat, is presented by carnivores as a necessary and vital nutrient. If one used that ketone fueled brain harder, one would understand that the science proves that it’s not.
The trend for meat consumption is bad for long-term health in the science. The trend for plant consumption, especially whole foods, is good for long-term health in the science. Do you understand what this dose-response aspect is?
You’re literally arguing for some “low dose” case for meat, and that itself is a counter-argument against eating meat. Animal flesh isn’t some rare vitamin in a dose so small that it fits between your teeth, it is consumed in large chunks of mass, supposedly filling up your stomach. Some people consume some bits of organs of animals, especially as health supplements, hoping to get health boosts; they’re fools and it’s a scam, but that’s a “low dose” situation of animal consumption. With meat, muscle and adipose tissue is what we’re referring to, and that is sold by larger mass units of measurements, something that matches the volumes of our stomachs.
When you argue for a low dose of what some people consider a staple, you’re already accepting that it’s not necessary.
Really? Countless? I literally know 1 other vegan and 1 vegetarian. My anecdote cancels yours.
deleted by creator