Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down

Healthy or Unhealthy

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Vote_lcap7%Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Vote_rcap 7% 
[ 2 ]
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Vote_lcap93%Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Vote_rcap 93% 
[ 25 ]
 
Total Votes : 27

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by JB on Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:04 pm

OH GOD... The multiquoting, it begins XD

ReconToaster wrote:They are ingested in the SAME WAY.

THAT IS NOT TRUE O.o lol jk
JB
JB
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1183
Age : 26
Location : Believe me... You do not want to know O_o
Registration date : 2008-10-14

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:11 am

ReconToaster wrote: You're obviously not very extensively concerned. We can argue semantics for as long as we want, but the fact of the matter is that Vegans takes vitamins to supplement the rest of their diet. Medication for psychosis and other mental disorders contain chemicals which have direct effects on the brain. They have no relation to food, other than being ingested orally.

And that they are taking these pills because, if they didn't, they'd get sick. What do you know, I've drawn an almost stronger correlation to supplements and medication that you have between supplements and food!

ReconToaster wrote: Vitamins contribute the same nutritious material as food does. They both satisfy the same nutritional needs. Pills taken for the flu, and for psychosis, have entirely different purposes, and entirely different effects, and are therefore not really applicable to this argument.

Supplements can be considered to be "part of a diet" because they contribute to the same needs.

In essence, both supplements and pills introduce a chemical into your body that incurs a specific effect that usually results in you not being sick. With flu, this chemical is one that helps you to destroy influenza. With mental disorders, let's take clinical depression as an example, this chemical is called serotonin, and is rather important for your mental stability. In supplements, the chemicals vary from calcium to Vitamin D.

ReconToaster wrote:Most of those things you listed aren't really relevant. Sure, supplements are different from foods, but they still both satisfy the same nutritional needs.

And what you've done is drawn a single parallel between supplements and foods and jabbered on about how it is the only thing relevant because you said so.

ReconToaster wrote:Most of what you listed focuses on things like tradition, and what you, as a person, seem to favor.

Tradition? Are you still buggering on about how we need pesticides to mass produce food? Because I have bad news for you. Even with pesticides and growth hormones and windowless ventilation chambers and all that shit that goes into the meat packing industry in todays age, beef still occurs naturally, and Vitamin B12 tablets do not!

ReconToaster wrote:So what if pills don't taste nice? Who cares if they aren't filling? They're taken alongside actual food, so those needs are already satisfied.

The point being, supplements are not food. By the vague criterion that you're using to define food, we could call exercise or a good sleeping pattern food!

ReconToaster wrote:How the supplements are prepared, whether or not they're naturally occurring, and whether or not they can be prepared by the average person have nothing to do with supplemental/nutritional value.

What you seem to have failed to realize is that only you are using nutrition as the single criterion with which to define what does and does not go in a diet. Everyone else, be it the dictionary, which explicitly states in every definition that a diet is something to do with your intake of food and drink, PERIOD, or Wikipedia, which defines a diet as the "sum of food consumed by a person or other organism," KEY WORD BEING FOOD, seems to have it figured out that a diet is something to do with food, and having almost nothing to do with what other substances we can take that might also affect nutrition, because those aren't part of a diet, but rather something to let certain less healthy diets, because those diets cannot, on their own, stand. If I had Insulin shot directly into my blood stream, it would have fuck all to do with my diet. Sure, it would probably be good for my nutrition were I a diabetic, but it would be ultimately a separate entity when compared with my diet.

_________________
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Ziggy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:26 am

Rot you are pretty much totally correct here, and entirely valid, BUT how exactly does the condition of supplements as a non-food object sway your, or any of our opinions on Veganism? Sure, it's not a food, and sure it's not naturally occuring, but is this problematic at all for the Vegans who properly supplement their diet?

They don't eat meat for a reason, and if they can properly obtain the supplementary needs that meat fulfils without eating meat, where is the problem?
Ziggy
Ziggy
Minion

Male Number of posts : 366
Age : 26
Location : Melbourne
Registration date : 2009-08-08

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:33 am

The question here is whether or not the Vegan diet is healthy. Because I do not qualify supplements as part of a diet, as they are not food, then they do not count when qualifying if the Vegan diet is or is not healthy. Is the Vegan lifestyle healthy? Well, the buggers stand a chance if they remember to take their three or four or five pills every day, but bugger all knows that I forget to take my pills all the time, and I'd never want to trust my life to remembering to take pills because I've decided that eating animals that have already been killed and packaged is crueler than letting them have died in vain for no better reason than to please Walmart's demand for meat.

_________________
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Toaster on Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:08 am

rot wrote:And that they are taking these pills because, if they didn't, they'd get sick.

And you eat fruits and vegetables because if you didn't, you'd get sick.

Rot wrote:In essence, both supplements and pills introduce a chemical into your body that incurs a specific effect that usually results in you not being sick. With flu, this chemical is one that helps you to destroy influenza. With mental disorders, let's take clinical depression as an example, this chemical is called serotonin, and is rather important for your mental stability. In supplements, the chemicals vary from calcium to Vitamin D.

I like the way you framed it there. However, even if we do accept supplements as "medication," I don't see why we can't consider medication to be part of a diet.

Rot wrote:Tradition? Are you still buggering on about how we need pesticides to mass produce food? Because I have bad news for you. Even with pesticides and growth hormones and windowless ventilation chambers and all that shit that goes into the meat packing industry in todays age, beef still occurs naturally, and Vitamin B12 tablets do not!

No, I'm saying that you're disqualifying supplements as part of a diet based on nit-picky things, like the fact that they're not naturally occurring, or that they cannot be prepared by the average person.

Rot wrote:The point being, supplements are not food. By the vague criterion that you're using to define food, we could call exercise or a good sleeping pattern food!

Don't those produce chemicals that are different from what is found in food?

Rot wrote:What you seem to have failed to realize is that only you are using nutrition as the single criterion with which to define what does and does not go in a diet. Everyone else, be it the dictionary, which explicitly states in every definition that a diet is something to do with your intake of food and drink, PERIOD, or Wikipedia, which defines a diet as the "sum of food consumed by a person or other organism," KEY WORD BEING FOOD, seems to have it figured out that a diet is something to do with food, and having almost nothing to do with what other substances we can take that might also affect nutrition, because those aren't part of a diet, but rather something to let certain less healthy diets, because those diets cannot, on their own, stand.

The dictionary also defines "Universe" as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena," when today, we often use the term "universe" to describe one of many groups in the cosmos.

As the world changes, definitions change. The definition of "diet" was decided upon long before the invention of supplement pills.

Rot wrote:Well, the buggers stand a chance if they remember to take their three or four or five pills every day, but bugger all knows that I forget to take my pills all the time,

I'm sure it's not that fragile of a diet. I'm sure I get a hell of a lot less nutrients from my diet than vegans on supplements do. I'm not dropping dead.

Rot wrote:and I'd never want to trust my life to remembering to take pills because I've decided that eating animals that have already been killed and packaged is crueler than letting them have died in vain for no better reason than to please Walmart's demand for meat.

Okay, that's just stupid. Now, we're not arguing about whether or not people should be vegetarian/vegan, but the goal of committing to either of those life-styles is to decrease demand for meat, which, over time, theoretically, decreases supply (aka the killing of animals.)
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Vigil on Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:55 am

As I come from a scientist standpoint I'll give my two cents on it

The Vegan diet isn't healthy, it's in the same vein as say a carbohydrate diet or Atkins. The human body needs many vitamins and minerals from varying different food groups.

With a Vegan diet, you don't get any or very little protein which is crucial for cell growth and repair.

Oh and I'm with Rot on this, if you have to take vitamin supplements to maintain yourself, then your eating habits are doing more harm than good. Fruit and Veg is good for you, there is no denying that, but to eat only them lacks the vital balance the body needs.

_________________
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Viggy
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 House

A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
Vigil
Vigil
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 30
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Gauz on Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:33 pm

...


You guy's aren't debating wether or not the diet is healthy, you're debating what is a diet and what isn't it seems, which is pointless.

I consider the supplement apart of the diet, it isn't taken like regular food but it's ment to be taken the same way, for nutritional value.
So in my case, the vegan diet is healthy, because they get eveything they need.
Now, if you don't consider supplement apart of the diet, then it isn't healthy, becasue they lack the nutritional value.



So, now we're going to have to agree on the definition of: Diet, because the entire argument is based on it. There can be a lot of misinterpretation, because of what the dictionary says. I however, found out that the FDA regulates dietary supplement as food, and not as drugs.




I'm pretty sure if that's the case, me and recon are right.
Gauz
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:57 pm

ReconToaster wrote:And you eat fruits and vegetables because if you didn't, you'd get sick.

The key word being eat verse take, as fruits and vegetables are food.

ReconToaster wrote:I like the way you framed it there. However, even if we do accept supplements as "medication," I don't see why we can't consider medication to be part of a diet.

Probably something to do with diet being defined as an intake of food and water, not an intake of food, water, and whatever medication you can take to make up for the fact that the food you are eating is severely lacking in a handful of extremely important nutrients.

ReconToaster wrote:No, I'm saying that you're disqualifying supplements as part of a diet based on nit-picky things, like the fact that they're not naturally occurring, or that they cannot be prepared by the average person.

Nit-picky? I find the differences between pills and food to be rather large. The one nit-picking here is you, with your single correlation.

ReconToaster wrote:Don't those produce chemicals that are different from what is found in food?

Depends on what nutrients we're talking about. I'm pretty sure the body can make a handful of nutrients on its own with proper exercise and sleeping habits, which I believe also affect things like your metabolism and ability to break down nutrients.

ReconToaster wrote:The dictionary also defines "Universe" as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena," when today, we often use the term "universe" to describe one of many groups in the cosmos.

The fallacy here being that the dictionary definition you referred to is "too large" and we shrink it down to refer to even fewer things, whereas the dictionary definition I was referring to would have to be "too specific" and have to be enlarged to include your definition.

ReconToaster wrote:As the world changes, definitions change. The definition of "diet" was decided upon long before the invention of supplement pills.

And I am to assume that because we decided that diet meant this then, it has never changed, especially when referring to Wikipedia, which isn't chained to any particular definition as long as it is the most correct definition in today's age?

ReconToaster wrote:I'm sure it's not that fragile of a diet. I'm sure I get a hell of a lot less nutrients from my diet than vegans on supplements do. I'm not dropping dead.

Maybe not that fragile, but remember that the nutrients they are missing out on are much more important than the ones they're getting from food. Calcium is probably the most essential nutrient, with a recommended daily intake of 1000 mg. To put that into perspective, the recommended daily intake of Vitamin A is about 150 mg, and the recommended daily intake of Vitamin C is 60 mg. Other nutrients that vegans have to supplement because their diet lacks them completely are Vitamin D (recommended daily amount is 1 mg), Vitamin B12 (recommended daily amount is 0.6 mg), and Iodine (recommended daily amount is 15 mg).

ReconToaster wrote:Okay, that's just stupid. Now, we're not arguing about whether or not people should be vegetarian/vegan, but the goal of committing to either of those life-styles is to decrease demand for meat, which, over time, theoretically, decreases supply (aka the killing of animals.)

Which is why us omnivores who don't want to have to pop pills in order to survive and understand that animals taste very delicious, and that without a demand for meat, there likely won't even be many cows or chickens left, since they're bought and bred for their meat and milk and eggs, so the animals don't actually benefit even if the vegan movement swept the nation, have vowed to eat more meat to pick up the slack, thus eliminating any possible benefits that anyone might have imagined in the hopes that people will give up on the pipe dream of cows running free across fields as if the damned things were horses and choose a diet that might actually be healthy without the requirement of supplements.

Gauz wrote:...


You guy's aren't debating wether or not the diet is healthy, you're debating what is a diet and what isn't it seems, which is pointless.

Establishing what is and is not part of a diet is important when one tries to qualify what diets are and are not healthy.

Gauz wrote:I consider the supplement apart of the diet, it isn't taken like regular food but it's ment to be taken the same way, for nutritional value.
So in my case, the vegan diet is healthy, because they get eveything they need.
Now, if you don't consider supplement apart of the diet, then it isn't healthy, becasue they lack the nutritional value.

Now that I think about it, let's say that supplements are allowed to be included in the definition of diet. Then, I say that all diets are healthy, because you can just pop pills till you're blue in the face to make up for whatever nutrients your diet is void of. Ice cream diet? Just take supplements for all of the nutrients not found in ice cream, and maybe do more exercise than you normally would. Healthy. Very Happy

Guaz wrote:So, now we're going to have to agree on the definition of: Diet, because the entire argument is based on it. There can be a lot of misinterpretation, because of what the dictionary says. I however, found out that the FDA regulates dietary supplement as food, and not as drugs.

Ironically, the very definition of dietary supplement is a substance used to make up for things lacking in one's diet.

Gauz wrote:I'm pretty sure if that's the case, me and recon are right.

Afraid not. Whether the FDA regulates supplements as a food or a drug, all definitions everywhere point to supplements as being separate from a diet.

_________________
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Gauz on Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:23 pm

I think the Food and Drug administration has a say on what is Food and what is a drug in America, and by their definition, it's food.

Not all other defintions point to it being seperate, some do. I would trust the Food and Drug Administration to be able to correctly label what is food, and what is a drug. In America, supplement is apart of food, says the FDA. What makes a dictionary any more correct than the FDA?
Gauz
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by KrAzY on Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:28 pm

where does the FDA say that supplementary drugs are food?
KrAzY
KrAzY
Painter of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 3965
Age : 30
Registration date : 2008-06-29

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Gauz on Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:34 pm

Gauz
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Toaster on Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:42 pm

Rot wrote:The key word being eat verse take, as fruits and vegetables are food.

Okay then. I EAT two Flintstones gummy vitamins every day. Does that count as food? If it does, and pills which serve the exact same purpose do not, then you're being incredibly picky and narrow. The only difference is that you chew one of them, and swallow the other without chewing. Actually, it's pretty easy to just swallow those gummy bears whole. So... what makes the two so different?

Rot wrote:Depends on what nutrients we're talking about. I'm pretty sure the body can make a handful of nutrients on its own with proper exercise and sleeping habits, which I believe also affect things like your metabolism and ability to break down nutrients.

But diet only includes the actual intake of energy and nutrients. Your body just takes the nutrients and energy that you get from your diet and, through other activities, (like exercise and sleep) converts them into OTHER forms of nutrients/energy.

Diet is what you actually consume.

Rot wrote:The fallacy here being that the dictionary definition you referred to is "too large" and we shrink it down to refer to even fewer things, whereas the dictionary definition I was referring to would have to be "too specific" and have to be enlarged to include your definition.

Except that's not really relevant. My point was that, as new knowledge is gathered, definitions tend to change. I'm offering a very broad concept. It shouldn't be analyzed to closely on a case-by-case basis.

Rot wrote:And I am to assume that because we decided that diet meant this then, it has never changed, especially when referring to Wikipedia, which isn't chained to any particular definition as long as it is the most correct definition in today's age?

I never claimed that the majority of sources, or people, agree that supplements are a part of a diet. I, however, do believe that they should be considered one in the same. I'm arguing that they should, and that, based on that definition, the Vegan "diet" is perfectly healthy.


rot wrote:Which is why us omnivores who don't want to have to pop pills in order to survive and understand that animals taste very delicious, and that without a demand for meat, there likely won't even be many cows or chickens left, since they're bought and bred for their meat and milk and eggs, so the animals don't actually benefit even if the vegan movement swept the nation, have vowed to eat more meat to pick up the slack, thus eliminating any possible benefits that anyone might have imagined in the hopes that people will give up on the pipe dream of cows running free across fields as if the damned things were horses and choose a diet that might actually be healthy without the requirement of supplements.

Vegetarians/vegans aren't fighting for the survival of animal species'. They're fighting for how they are treated. They believe that it would be better for there to be far fewer cows on the planet than it is for there to be billions of cows, with most of them living under incredibly cruel conditions.

A chicken who lives its entire life in a cage without the ability to even stand up, or turn around, isn't living much of a life.

That said, I love my meat.

Rot wrote:Now that I think about it, let's say that supplements are allowed to be included in the definition of diet. Then, I say that all diets are healthy, because you can just pop pills till you're blue in the face to make up for whatever nutrients your diet is void of. Ice cream diet? Just take supplements for all of the nutrients not found in ice cream, and maybe do more exercise than you normally would. Healthy.

No, we don't judge diets based on the potential to improve said diet by taking supplements.

That's like saying "All diets are healthy, because if you just added fruits, vegetables, and meat, they would be."

You have to also understand that certain foods themselves have NEGATIVE effects. Fruits and vegetables don't have individual negative effects. They just don't supply enough nutrition on their own. Eating that much ice cream, on its own, can actually have negative effects. Sure, you'd be getting enough nutrition if you ate nothing but ice cream and supplements, but you'd still have negative effects from too much ice-cream.

Rot wrote:Ironically, the very definition of dietary supplement is a substance used to make up for things lacking in one's diet.

Really? It sounds to me like something that supplements other items in your diet, thus making it a PART of your diet.

Rot wrote:Whether the FDA regulates supplements as a food or a drug, all definitions everywhere point to supplements as being separate from a diet.

Except for the experts at the FDA that is... who refer to supplements as "unconventional foods."
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Nocbl2 on Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:09 pm

I'd say a real vegan diet (ONLY fruits and veggies, carbs etc.) isn't good, because you get no protein whatsoever.
Nocbl2
Nocbl2
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 4814
Age : 20
Location : California
Registration date : 2009-03-18

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Gauz on Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:14 pm

Read up why don't you
Gauz
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Rotaretilbo on Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:57 pm

ReconToaster wrote:Okay then. I EAT two Flintstones gummy vitamins every day. Does that count as food? If it does, and pills which serve the exact same purpose do not, then you're being incredibly picky and narrow. The only difference is that you chew one of them, and swallow the other without chewing. Actually, it's pretty easy to just swallow those gummy bears whole. So... what makes the two so different?

Gummy vitamins are hard to rule on. I'd probably rule them as food because they meet almost all of the other criteria I laid out for food.

ReconToaster wrote:But diet only includes the actual intake of energy and nutrients. Your body just takes the nutrients and energy that you get from your diet and, through other activities, (like exercise and sleep) converts them into OTHER forms of nutrients/energy.

Diet is what you actually consume.

Ah, but weren't we just talking about how the definition of diet doesn't count, because times have changed? I'm sure people didn't understand that our body produced a handful of nutrients on its own when they defined diet, eh?

ReconToaster wrote:Except that's not really relevant. My point was that, as new knowledge is gathered, definitions tend to change. I'm offering a very broad concept. It shouldn't be analyzed to closely on a case-by-case basis.

It never is relevant when you don't like it. The point is, Recon, that if you're going to say that definitions don't count, at least use an example in which a word is used to refer to more than what it is defined as, not less.

ReconToaster wrote:I never claimed that the majority of sources, or people, agree that supplements are a part of a diet. I, however, do believe that they should be considered one in the same. I'm arguing that they should, and that, based on that definition, the Vegan "diet" is perfectly healthy.

My point being that whether you think it should or not is not relevant to whether or not it is, and we can't go around using our own personal definitions when it comes to defining things.

ReconToaster wrote:Vegetarians/vegans aren't fighting for the survival of animal species'. They're fighting for how they are treated. They believe that it would be better for there to be far fewer cows on the planet than it is for there to be billions of cows, with most of them living under incredibly cruel conditions.

But reducing the demand of meat probably won't improve quality of life for animals. It will just reduce how many animals suffer from poor quality of life in correlation to the number of animals alive.

ReconToaster wrote:A chicken who lives its entire life in a cage without the ability to even stand up, or turn around, isn't living much of a life.

Actually, most meat packing plants don't have the farmers cage the chickens like that. Chickens are generally kept in dark ventilated buildings. The chickens are generally too fat to move about, and some get sick because there isn't a lot of room and so the building is always very messy.

ReconToaster wrote:That said, I love my meat.

How anyone couldn't is beyond me. Meat is too delicious.

ReconToaster wrote:No, we don't judge diets based on the potential to improve said diet by taking supplements.

But that is exactly what you are doing!

ReconToaster wrote:That's like saying "All diets are healthy, because if you just added fruits, vegetables, and meat, they would be."

Well actually, the presence of fruits, vegetables, or meat would change what type of diet it is.

ReconToaster wrote:You have to also understand that certain foods themselves have NEGATIVE effects. Fruits and vegetables don't have individual negative effects.

Actually, they do. An overabundance of Vitamin A will cause Hypervitaminosis A, which has various negative effects such as hair loss, liver problems, bone loss, dry skin, and hypertension of the brain. An overabundance of Vitamin C will result in diarrhea and dehydration. An overabundance of Vitamin E will result in lower blood viscosity and thus bleeding issues. An overabundance of Potassium will cause irregular heart beats, which may be fatal.

ReconToaster wrote:They just don't supply enough nutrition on their own. Eating that much ice cream, on its own, can actually have negative effects. Sure, you'd be getting enough nutrition if you ate nothing but ice cream and supplements, but you'd still have negative effects from too much ice-cream.

Then maybe I'd go on the ice cream and rib diet instead.

ReconToaster wrote:Really? It sounds to me like something that supplements other items in your diet, thus making it a PART of your diet.

Wikipedia describes it as thus: "A dietary supplement, also known as food supplement or nutritional supplement, is a preparation intended to provide nutrients, such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, fatty acids or amino acids, that are missing or are not consumed in sufficient quantity in a person's diet."

ReconToaster wrote:Except for the experts at the FDA that is... who refer to supplements as "unconventional foods."

Well then perhaps unconventional foods aren't considered part of one's diet, because dietary supplements are very clearly outlined as something apart from one's diet that one takes in order to supplement the diet itself.

_________________
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Rot_cube_Signature-1
Rotaretilbo
Rotaretilbo
Magnificent Bastard

Male Number of posts : 4540
Age : 29
Location : Arizona
Registration date : 2008-07-21

http://cdpgames.com

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Toaster on Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:49 pm

Rot wrote:Gummy vitamins are hard to rule on. I'd probably rule them as food because they meet almost all of the other criteria I laid out for food.

So then really... the only factors that really matter to you are... taste and the fact that you usually chew it?

Rot wrote:Ah, but weren't we just talking about how the definition of diet doesn't count, because times have changed? I'm sure people didn't understand that our body produced a handful of nutrients on its own when they defined diet, eh?

I don't think we're arguing about the definition of diet so much as we're arguing about the definition of food. Diet is defined quite unanimously as... the foods you eat. I guess the real question is about what we can define as "food."

Exercise and Sleep don't count as part of a diet because they aren't a primary source of food OR nutrition. They're not even close to either proposed definitions.

As for the definition of food, well, once again, the FDA defines dietary supplements as "unconventional foods."

Sounds to me like food. If you really think that personal opinions toward definitions don't matter so much as expert opinions, then you should be considering supplements to be a part of one's diet.

Rot wrote:But reducing the demand of meat probably won't improve quality of life for animals. It will just reduce how many animals suffer from poor quality of life in correlation to the number of animals alive.

I think the idea is that, if all methods of livestock husbandry were eradicated, then the percentage of abused animals would go way way way down... which is probably true.

That's just never going to happen, or if it does, it won't be because of animal rights efforts.
Rot wrote:
Actually, most meat packing plants don't have the farmers cage the chickens like that. Chickens are generally kept in dark ventilated buildings. The chickens are generally too fat to move about, and some get sick because there isn't a lot of room and so the building is always very messy.

Not sure if that's much better :/


Rot wrote: But that is exactly what you are doing!

No. I'm calling a diet that ALREADY INCLUDES supplements "healthy."

You're saying that any and all diets should be considered healthy because they could potentially be supplemented by pills.

Again, that's hardly different from saying that any diet could be considered healthy because it COULD be supplemented with fruits and vegetables.

If you truly delve into the mindset of considering supplements to be "food," then you wouldn't make an argument like that.

Rot wrote:Actually, they do. An overabundance of Vitamin A will cause Hypervitaminosis A, which has various negative effects such as hair loss, liver problems, bone loss, dry skin, and hypertension of the brain. An overabundance of Vitamin C will result in diarrhea and dehydration. An overabundance of Vitamin E will result in lower blood viscosity and thus bleeding issues. An overabundance of Potassium will cause irregular heart beats, which may be fatal.

Very well, but an ice-cream diet with supplements would still be less healthy than a fruit/vegetable diet with supplements. Of course, that all depends on how much of any/all of those foods that you consume.

Rot wrote:Well then perhaps unconventional foods aren't considered part of one's diet, because dietary supplements are very clearly outlined as something apart from one's diet that one takes in order to supplement the diet itself.

Sure.... by wikipedia. That's just one source, and not much of an expert one. Wikipedia is very accurate when it comes to definitive subjects, but the inclusion of supplements as part of a given "diet" is a topic of controversy.
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Ziggy on Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:25 pm

This is really just a big battle of who can exploit semantics.

I don't think this will ever come to a conclusion, because I know neither of you will ever back done to the other.
Ziggy
Ziggy
Minion

Male Number of posts : 366
Age : 26
Location : Melbourne
Registration date : 2009-08-08

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Toaster on Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:31 pm

Ziggy wrote:This is really just a big battle of who can exploit semantics.

I don't think this will ever come to a conclusion, because I know neither of you will ever back done to the other.

Yeah, we both seem to have a talent for participating in MASSIVE semantic debates. I mean, at this point we're essentially arguing about the definition of food. Neutral

I suppose the answer to all of this is simply that the question of this poll should be "Is the Vegan life-style healthy," which would allow us to avoid all of this crap about definitions.

On the other hand, I'm really enjoying this Razz
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Kasrkin Seath on Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:38 am

Okay, can we come to an agreement on two things?

Vegan WITHOUT the dietary supplements is very unhealthy
Vegan WITH the dietary supplements is healthy

Now, I would say that if you have a diet that is healthy, why would you need to use supplements to survive?

_________________
I AM THE LAW
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Kasrki10
[00:17:22] @ KrAzY : new law.
[00:17:28] @ KrAzY : the law can now be a person.
[00:17:28] @ XNate02 : The Law, can only be The Law.
[00:17:32] @ Gauz : I'd kick everyone....
[00:17:37] @ KrAzY : and that person is seath
[00:17:39] @ kasrkin seath : YES
------------------------------------------
[02:22:43] @ KrAzY : the reason we all come to TCF is because Seath is too Lord Pheonix damn sexy to stop.
Kasrkin Seath
Kasrkin Seath
The Law

Male Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Ziggy on Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:39 am

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Okay, can we come to an agreement on two things?

Vegan WITHOUT the dietary supplements is very unhealthy
Vegan WITH the dietary supplements is healthy

Now, I would say that if you have a diet that is healthy, why would you need to use supplements to survive?

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU-

YOU JUST LED US BACK TO SQUARE ONE FOR FUCKS SAKE
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Ziggy
Ziggy
Minion

Male Number of posts : 366
Age : 26
Location : Melbourne
Registration date : 2009-08-08

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Kasrkin Seath on Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:41 am

Ziggy wrote:
Kasrkin Seath wrote:Okay, can we come to an agreement on two things?

Vegan WITHOUT the dietary supplements is very unhealthy
Vegan WITH the dietary supplements is healthy

Now, I would say that if you have a diet that is healthy, why would you need to use supplements to survive?

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU-

YOU JUST LED US BACK TO SQUARE ONE FOR FUCKS SAKE
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Well, I dont see why it matters since you have been arguing over the same damn things since the second, maybe even first page without much of a result...

I was just clarifying those two points

_________________
I AM THE LAW
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Kasrki10
[00:17:22] @ KrAzY : new law.
[00:17:28] @ KrAzY : the law can now be a person.
[00:17:28] @ XNate02 : The Law, can only be The Law.
[00:17:32] @ Gauz : I'd kick everyone....
[00:17:37] @ KrAzY : and that person is seath
[00:17:39] @ kasrkin seath : YES
------------------------------------------
[02:22:43] @ KrAzY : the reason we all come to TCF is because Seath is too Lord Pheonix damn sexy to stop.
Kasrkin Seath
Kasrkin Seath
The Law

Male Number of posts : 3018
Location : Michigan
Registration date : 2008-07-12

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by KrAzY on Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:22 am

i'd like to point out the fact that our poll has lost 1% to oblivion
KrAzY
KrAzY
Painter of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 3965
Age : 30
Registration date : 2008-06-29

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by A_Bearded_Swede on Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:29 am

KrAzY wrote:i'd like to point out the fact that our poll has lost 1% to oblivion
I just saw that, so i'm not going to vote to ruin it. ^.^

Anyways.

Dietary Supplements.
V
Supplements the Diet.
V
Helps out Diet.
V
Supplements are not part of Diet.

So yeah, I'm agreeing with Rot here.
The Vegan diet is unhealthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM

_________________
Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Skyrimr

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Ironmanl
.:Live Life, Love Life:.
A_Bearded_Swede
A_Bearded_Swede
Crimson Chef

Male Number of posts : 1743
Age : 27
Location : Jersey
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Toaster on Thu Jan 28, 2010 1:51 pm

Kasrkin Seath wrote:Okay, can we come to an agreement on two things?

Vegan WITHOUT the dietary supplements is very unhealthy
Vegan WITH the dietary supplements is healthy

Now, I would say that if you have a diet that is healthy, why would you need to use supplements to survive?

Because the idea is that supplements are just as much a part of the diet as the fruits and vegetables.

From the perspective of what I'm arguing, what you just said is like saying "If you have a diet that is healthy, why would you need fruits and vegetables to survive?"

See? We're arguing about whether or not supplements should be considered a form of "food."
Toaster
Toaster
Lord's Personal Minion

Male Number of posts : 2715
Age : 26
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-06-19

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Gauz on Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:18 pm

I noticed that the poll has a percent missing, and it bothers me... a lot..



Anyways, as the FDA regulates, dietary supplement is food, and this arguement IS OVER! VEGAN DIET'S ARE HEALTHY, END OF DISCUSSION, STOP OVER-ANALYZING THIS!


Why take a vegan diet? Apparently they want to waste dead animal's delicious flesh, and live healthy, ironically.
Gauz
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

Back to top Go down

Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty? - Page 2 Empty Re: Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum