With a vegan diet, you need vitamin B12 supplements.
Take a multi-vitamin supplement, some linseed oil for the essential fatty acids and maybe some mineral supplement if appropriate according to the blood test.
You should do that anyway no matter your diet.
Dr Garth Davis: Americans have become obsessed with Protein
With a vegan diet, you need vitamin B12 supplements.
From the linked article:
> Overall, multivitamins are not recommended for the generally healthy. There’s just no clear evidence to prove that they have any benefit. A 2013 analysis of 27 trials involving more than 400,000 people concluded that there was no clear evidence that they reduce cardiovascular disease, cancer risks, or reduce all-cause mortality.
This makes no sense.
You have a vegan diet to reduce cardiovascular disease, cancer risks, or reduce all-cause mortality.
You take vitamin supplements to prevent potential deficiencies.
> Vitamin B12 deficiency in the US and the UK is estimated to occur in about 6 percent of those under the age of 60, and 20 percent of those over the age of 60.[1] In Latin America rates are estimated at 40 percent and they may be as high as 80 per cent in parts of Africa and Asia.[1]
Certain opinions or facts are downvoted without any contradicting facts. Now matter how reasonable the opinion or true the fact is. Especially regarding politics and nutrition. If your comment matches a certain pattern, you get downvoted or upvoted by certain people who never give any facts but who might insult you instead.
> Certain opinions or facts are downvoted without any contradicting facts. Now matter how reasonable the opinion or true the fact is.
Not really in this case. Take the comment in question: there's no fact or even much opinion there. It's mostly innuendo. Good moderators will downvote trollish comments, or flamebait, or comments that lead in other unproductive or uninteresting directions, regardless of the "opinions or facts" it contains.
Quote: The spying row has also been stirred by allegations that Merkel’s staff gave the German BND foreign intelligence agency a green light to help the NSA spy on European firms and officials.
Quote: The Belgacom breach sparked outrage in Europe’s political institutions and made global headlines. But Belgium’s effort to identify the spies responsible and hold them accountable faced roadblocks at almost every turn. Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, refused to assist. Prosecutors overseeing the case feared triggering a major diplomatic dispute and were reluctant to pursue it aggressively. Meanwhile, British spies tried to destroy the evidence. “We wanted to show that as a small country, we would not be bullied,” said a source close to the investigation. “But we were fighting against two big cyberarmies from the U.K. and the U.S. We knew we could never win this.”
Quote: The consultant Florian Kling, formerly a cyber officer and public relations expert for the German Armed Forces, told Stoltenberg on Twitter : "Explain why the civil network is important to NATO, how NATO / US would communicate through these channels "It's not a military or landline core, and should not I trust our crypto capabilities?" Other military officials also see this as follows: "Our intelligence services work together excellently - classified information is guaranteed not to be transported via a 4G or 5G network, but rather in completely different ways," said Patrick Sensburg on Deutschlandradio . The CDU deputy and lieutenant colonel of the reserve sits in the intelligence committee Parlamentarisches Kontrollgremium (PKGr). "This is about the exercise of economic power," emphasized Professor Sensburg.
>>> Certain opinions or facts are downvoted without any contradicting facts. Now matter how reasonable the opinion or true the fact is.
>> Not really in this case. Take the comment in question: there's no fact or even much opinion there. It's mostly innuendo.
> What are the facts against Huawei ? Do you have any ?
What about Huawei? I was talking about ElBarto's comment, as is everyone in this entire thread. He was just scolded by a mod about his conduct, so I don't think my take was too far off.
I do not remember anymore what ElBarto wrote and it is censored now.
But it was related to the boycott of Huawei. It was reasonable like all other good critical comments that were downvoted to a grey font color at that time. I replied to the poster who wondered why ElBarto's post was downvoted because there was nothing wrong with it when I read it.
Besides, my comment was downvoted too without any valid criticism and thus it was validated.
> I do not remember anymore what ElBarto wrote and it is censored now.
> I replied to the poster who wondered why ElBarto's post was downvoted because there was nothing wrong with it when I read it.
There was something wrong with it, but you didn't understand it. That's fine, but understand that things you can't perceive still exist. Lots of people found fault with it, including a mod. Don't you think that could mean something actually was wrong with it?
However, if you've already forgotten it, maybe we should drop it?
> But it was related to the boycott of Huawei.
Barely and unproductively, as I outlined above.
> Besides, my comment was downvoted too without any valid criticism and thus it was validated.
It's common practice here to downvote comments that complain about downvotes, because they don't actually add to the discussion. Complaining about voting is frowned upon.
> It's common practice here to downvote comments that complain about downvotes, because they don't actually add to the discussion. Complaining about voting is frowned upon.
I answered a question.
Downvoting without giving a reason is lazy selfish cowardly trolling without contributing anything useful.
A downvote is even worse than an insult because:
- an insult shows the mindset and the stupidity of the insulting person.
- as intended, a downvote leads to deranking of the comment and thus "eradication" for many other readers who do not care to read downvoted comments or the last comments of many.
You're wasting your time. You've forgotten the content of the comment that spurred this thread, and I'm not interested in getting into some weird discussion about your views on downvoting in general.
You are proving his point by being so dishonest and insulting me, and downvoting everything.
And you guys are the ones taking things in unproductive directions by refusing to address or discuss the point of my initial comment (and you even go as far as pretending not to understand the point or to misrepresent it), which is American influence over its allies.
I wasn't pretending. You overestimate your communication skills. Have a look at your original comment and how much it is assuming that isn't being communicated to its audience.
What is this conversation supposed to be? Is it a play on lines from a movie or something? Who is it meant to be between? Who does the first speaker represent? What about the second? What is the context of the conversation? Why does that conversation relfect something true about the real-world situation? Is the conversation meant to be some kind of metaphor?
Because you know the point you're trying to make, the meaning of your comment is clear to you. But to someone who doesn't start out knowing what that point is meant to be, they don't have anything to go on.
You can't grasp the meaning of a metaphor, put it in context with the headline and a fictional dialog and think that his communication skills are bad?
Maybe yours are.
German spy agencies are known to work with/for US intelligence without any hesitations. There was little or rather no consequences at all following the disclosures made by Snowden, although even chancellor Merkels smartphone was wiretapped.
This history (see, it's more about knowing something about politics and history) has lead to the impression that Germany will mostly follow American pressure blindly.
Coupled with the total lack of solid reasons not to use Huawei, this thing just looks like a "don't buy from the Chinese"-request from the US and Cisco.
With such obscure things like former BND chief Schindler saying that Huawei tech is "one and a half to two years more advanced than ours" [0] and that he fears there would be dependence on Chinese tech (and not on US tech anymore). This is what it's all about. It's not about security, it's about money. As always.
It's telling that you think it was obviously a metaphor. It was obviously a fictional dialogue, but so many things relating to that dialogue (as mentioned in my previous comment) were unclear.
Have you heard of "the curse of knowledge"?
Assuming all the details in your explanation are correct, if someone already knows those details what are they going to get from your comment? And if they don't know those details, how are they supposed to understand your comment?
It's obvious you can't address the substance of my comment when you can only reply with that.
Only unclear to me? That's obviously untrue, because I can see your earlier replies to me are grayed out from downvotes by others (note especially the "My comment was crystal clear" one), and I know that my comments have been upvoted by several people who clearly think the same about your comment as I do.
I was on such a diet for many years and eventually gave up on it because I could not make it work in a healthy way.
Why?
Too many deficiencies. Example: Linseed oil /= DHA/EPA. Many or most people cannot make long chain Omega 3 fats in the quantity needed from vegetable "Omega 3" fats.
Too many anti-nutrients in plants.
Get on youtube and search "I used to be a vegan" for numerous cases like mine, health irreparably damaged.
> A high carb low fat low protein whole food plant based diet with (cheap) vitamin supplements and maybe linseed oil:
> - is the healthiest diet.
I would love to see the argument for this. I accept that it's the most cheap, efficient and possibly ethical (although there are a lot of ways you can go about producing this food, not all of it ethical), but healthiest? High carbs makes you fat. You need proteins and some fat. Having your diet be all carbs sounds like a bad idea.
I'm no dietician, but here's a couple of facts/myths/urban legends I've heard about nutrition. No idea how true they are, but they sound plausible to me:
* carbs digest into glucose
* too much glucose in your blood triggers insulin production which turns glucose into fat
* a glucose spike can trigger an insulin spike which leads to a glucose dip an hour or two after lunch
* eating fat triggers the feeling of being full, reducing your desire for more food
I have no idea how true these all are, but my impression is that there's at least some evidence supporting these. And if you add them all up, it sounds to me like you get fatter from eating carbs, because that can lead to a glucose spike -> insulin spike -> glucose dip which makes you want more sugar to get your glucose back up. Whereas food with more fat may make you feel full and stop craving more food.
But your conclusion is still not true. Saying carbs should be avoided is like saying water should be avoided because people died from drinking too much.
Biochemistry and psychology is complicated.
But a healthy diet is well known and not complicated.
Basically: Whole food plant based diet with vitamin supplements (notably vitamin B12) and e.g. linseed oil for the essential fatty acids.
I think there are significantly more people who eat too many carbs than people who drink too much water.
Speaking for just myself, I used to feel that sugar low after my lunch, and I know that craving for more carbs. I gained too much weight as a result. Now I've cut down on my carbs and I mostly snack on veggies these days and try not to overdo carbs at lunch, and that seems to help at least with that sugar low.
Science will prevail eventually, on that I will agree. Unfortunately most nutrition science today is complete garbage. The evidence doesn't back up the results they claim.
Basically, at this point each person has to try various things and figure out what works best for themself.
Quoting from the first link: "In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out."
This is garbage science. It's all like that. Believe whatever you like, though.
Quote:
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology.
Quote:
β-Hydroxybutyrate (βOHB), a ketone body, is oxidised as a brain fuel. Although its contribution to energy metabolism in the healthy brain is minimal, it is an interesting metabolite which is not only oxidised but also has other direct and collateral effects which make it a molecule of interest for therapeutic purposes.
> The most efficient diet for humans is one high in fat, moderate in protein, low in carbs;
This is not true.
Scientifically proven best diet: Whole food plant based high carb, low-moderate fat and low protein.
Unless the body is starving, fat and protein are not converted to glucose (the main energy source for cells) to cover energy needs.
Wow the sugar industry is still at it. Read the abstract. The study concludes that mice are incapable of auto-regulating caloric intake because fat stimulates their pleasure pathways causing them to overeat. Kinda like how sugar behaves in humans. See the graphical abstract[0] for a pictorial depiction the authors have helpfully provided.
You are right to question this study and the conclusion of the article.
Still, the study shows some important points:
- Professor John Speakman, who led the study, said: “The result of this enormous study was unequivocal – the only thing that made the mice get fat was eating more fat in their diets.
- “Carbohydrates including up to 30% of calories coming from sugar had no effect. Combining sugar with fat had no more impact than fat alone. There was no evidence that low protein (down to 5%) stimulated greater intake, suggesting there is no protein target. These effects of dietary fat seemed to be because uniquely fat in the diet stimulated the reward centres in the brain, stimulating greater intake.
Anyway, one has to wonder why the body has a natural tendency to eat carbs (only in plants like healthy fiber) if they are not part of the natural diet: Sweet fruits. Sweet vegetables. Sugar. Starch products. Processed meat with vegetable spices and not just bloody pure meat like carnivores with the appropriate digestive system.
You're wrong about most things but it's definitely cool to see cheese addiction come up in mainstream media. I used to eat whole blocks of the stuff at a time and when I quit I was literally shivering. That stuff might be alright in small doses if you have an eating disorder and need to make food more palatable, but it is not good for adults.
Don't believe everything you read, even rehashed science journals. You only have to look at what pro cyclists eat to know that fat isn't a cause of weight gain. When I stopped sugar and carbs (but still ate fruit so no ketosis) and started eating high amounts of fat the weight dropped off of me. I was already normal weight (185cm @ 85kg) and I lost 10kg. Fat has absolutely no blame in weight gain.
>A diet very high in fat and saturated fat adversely affects insulin sensitivity and thereby might contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes.
It's well established that sugars are responsible for type 2 diabetes.
>Isoenergetic 1000 kJ (240 kcal) servings of 38 foods separated into six food categories (fruits, bakery products, snack foods, carbohydrate-rich foods, protein-rich foods, breakfast cereals)
This is a badly designed study. It doesn't test the macro level satiety. It says "fat content" which I am going to presume is in the snack foods which are also high in semi-complex sugars.
The thing with all of these studies is that they are easy to try at home on yourself. It's well documented that the sugar industry paid to give fat a bad name but if you eat a high fat, plentiful protein and low carb diet for a month you will now the truth. You can feel it, you can see it.
> The study you linked talks about saturated fats.
True, saturated fat is probably the worst on this front, and unsaturated fat, if it comes packaged with things like vitamin e (to help prevent oxidation) might not be so bad.
> It's well established that sugars are responsible for type 2 diabetes.
No, it's actually not. This is a popular theory, but it's not very well supported. In terms of NAFLD, a strong contributer to insulin resistance, the worst offenders (in the context of a hyper-caloric diet ) are saturated fat and sugar (at 33% of the effect of sat. fat). Sugar only becomes bad when it's converted to fat, which only happens to a significant degree in hyper-caloric diets, when the liver can't dispose of the glucose quickly enough.
Your anecdotal evidence is nice and all, and may work for you, but is no substitute for meta-analysis of controlled studies.
Most US americans have been voting for Democrats or Republicans or not at all for decades. Of course the politics remain the same: Wars and politics that favor the richest.
Please, vote for the Green Party or another reasonable party in 2020.
Maybe it's worth it to first reform the political system from a first-past-the-post system to more proportional representation (otherwise, unless I'm mistaken, those votes go pretty much straight to the wastepaper basket (or trash can, in this case)).
Unfortunately to change the law you need voters who vote for a party that is willing to change it even though it came into power under the current law.
If you do not vote or vote for someone you do not want, your vote is worse than lost.
There is much potential for other parties. And while the presidential election is most important regarding war and the rest of the world, other elections for local politicians are important too and maybe even more important for US citizens.
Its pretty well known among environmentalists that the American green party isn't "green" enough. Its not a truly environmentalist party that puts environmental issues above human issues. A environmental party must be anti-consumerism and anti-materialism. It should be against growing the human economy but instead making it more efficient. That means doing hard things that hurt human appetites/sensibilities but are better for the planet (ie. limited human migration, decreasing imports).
Let take 2016 elections for example, your choices were; Hillary, responsible for a failed country right now and rigged primaries or Trump, the less said about him is better. If enough people voted for a different party, that would keep these two main parties in sort of a check as well, knowing they can't get away with whatever they want.
There are certainly things I don't agree with with the options available.
This idea that candidates need to perfectly represent everyone's opinions is just absurd. I don't agree with everything that Hillary did or that Trump is doing. That doesn't mean everything they did was bad or good.
But to suggest Jill Stein as a viable alternative when she has some dubious backing doesn't really empower choosing the 3rd party, does it?
Yeah, thats fair. I'm with you on that. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely, you just go with the one that agree the most with or disagree the least with.
You really believe that the POTUS (notably Jill Stein and the Green Party) could be paid by Russia to enforce Russian policies to the detriment of US citizens ?
This idea is as crazy as the idea that China invented global warming to harm the USA economy.
Back in 2012, almost three years before he declared that he was going to run for the White House, Mr Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Funny, I thought the war was a direct consequence of people voting for Bush.
Also thought the war was a direct consequence of more Democrats voting for Bush than the total number of votes Nader got.[0] Democrats favored Bush over Nader. The number of Democrats who voted for Bush exceeded those who voted for Nader five fold.
In the last state I lived in, Democrats were far more hostile to 3rd party candidates than Republicans were - putting in a lot more effort to ensure they wouldn't get on the ballet.
As someone who grew up in a country where people couldn't vote, I can't imagine acts more hostile to democracy than what I saw the Democrats do to limit choices on the ballot. I may vote Democrat often, but I don't see myself as ever supporting the party.
Your comments have entirely nothing to do with state regimes who monitor or coerce arbitrary citizens arbitrary communications.
FYI 'Julian Assange' is wanted for specific crimes, this is normal in any nation - hopefully, if he is arrested, he'll have a chance to defend himself against specific claims. That would be a very, very public trial with a lot of scrutiny.
... and 'Russia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela' are not 'notable examples' of anything in this context.
For the USA, this is about about national pride and personal revenge. Trump said that a death sentence is appropriate.
The trial and accusation might be kept secret. Like in Guantanamo and similar places around the world where people are held captive without trial and where torture is normal.
Do you really think the world is worried about Julian Assange because a fair trial is expected ?
Do you really think that he has spent his life in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012 because a fair trial is expected ?
Do you really think that Ecuador has protected Julian Assange in the embassy since 2012 because a fair trial is expected ?
I guess you are one of the US citizens who promote hate and war against Russia and China and thus want to censor free speech and messages to defend and promote your worldview.
Your words from the first comment I replied to: Nobody in the US is going to censor your email so that if you say something about Trump it gets magically deleted.
Your last comment proves that you are no better and you would love to have my comments deleted or having me banned from HN.
I guess it is also you who downvotes my comments.
You know you have nothing to say against the proofs that I linked.
Last time I looked Russia (not even talking about USSR) not only promoted but is quite involved in war in Ukraine that had killed thousands of people already. Georgia. Transnistria, etc. Thousands of people (mostly civilians, of course) were killed in Chechnia alone.
Pointing at Russia, of all places, as some kind of counter-example is laughable at best.
whataboutism at it's best...Russia is a sponsor in the Syrian war. Besides, neither China nor Russia need the excuse of war to harm or murder, it's called 'reeducation'.
Typically used by people who have nothing else to say.
I did not write anything to excuse China.
I wrote something that accuses the USA and our western democracies of being far worse than China for the world. Something very relevant regarding the fear mongering against Russia and China promoted by the message in the linked article that also promotes the worldview that the USA and the western democracies are beacons of goodness that must act against Russia and China.
Besides, Russia was invited by the official and elected Syrian president. The USA invaded Syria and promoted terrorism. You should read about what Syrian people think about Russia and the USA in their country.
> I wrote something that accuses the USA and our western democracies of being far worse than China for the world.
I think that's a denial of reality, though. Soviet Russia killed roughly 10 million of its own people [1]. Mao's Great Leap forward killed roughly 45 million people. [2] This isn't some "they mucked around in someone else's backyard--cultural interference!!!" badness. Together, Russia and China killed the same number of people that World War II did (~ 55 million), and they did this to their own subjects. What the U.S. and other Western democracies did was to prevent these horrors from visiting the rest of the world.
What Russia and China had in common, and still do, is that they were, and still are, totalitarian dictatorships. China happens to be the largest, most technologically advanced one we've ever seen. But it still is one. Totalitarian dictatorships are worse for the world. History has taught this much, at least.
You won't hear me claiming that USA and Western democracies are "beacons of goodness", but it's silly to say "Nay! Nay! They're worse!"
We are in 2019. Important things have changed since 1933.
Although unrelated but in reply to your message: China is a totalitarian dictatorship but I wonder if more Chinese people support it than US people support Trump or Clinton or any other of the war criminal mass murder US presidents that US democracy had elected in the last century.
I hope that the Green Party or another reasonable party will be elected in the USA in 2020.
Besides: AFAIK it is possible for many to use VPN in China to access the internet privately without censorship and without punishment.
Besides US agents are involved in the media secretly and openly (CNN, Fox News,... promoting the conspiracy and lie that should justify the publically well known war e.g. Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria).
What western media company is outraged regarding the situation of journalist Julian Assange ?
> This article is probably part of the US war campaign against Venezuela.
What is that even supposed to mean?
Besides the tin-foily nature of the baseless assertion, not to mention the hefty dose of weasel words, has the Maduro regime forced the conversion or not?
Eating sugar increases the sugar level in your body for some time.
Sugar is also food for bacteria and that leads to pus and inflammation and caries (the sugar in the saliva is converted to acid by bacteria).
There are also other bio-chemically active substances like certain fats and oils. Notably oils containing much Omega-6 acids (inflammation) like in sunflower seeds or sunflower oil.
Because they have no or smaller cheeks. But they have very acid stomachs.
The Comparative Anatomy of Eating
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatom...
Omnivore or Herbivore?
https://livinontheveg.com/omnivore-or-herbivore/
Milton Mills, MD: Are Humans Designed to Eat Meat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXj76A9hI-o&t=66