|
On September 21 2012 07:58 VL-Orion wrote:
China and Japan is at each others throat , the world economy is in shambles as European Union is scrambling to
The release of a movie that depicted Muhammad in unfavorable light has prompted many extremist Muslim into violence across the world and the attack of United States embassy in Libya killing 8 people including the US diplomat.
And statistically someone just died a horrible death somewhere as I posted this.
But lets not worry about all that , THE ANIMALS NEED OUR HELP!!!
The likes of Ingrid Newkirk and her PETA goons has state in public that they are against any kind of animal exploitation this include pets, guide animals for the blind(yes for blind people), zoo, circus, and finally for medical experimentation(including those that can cure AIDS) or medical product which include insulin that is a necessity for many diabetic to continue living (PETA has diabetics to)
But its okay when its a PETA use insulin because he/she needs it to save animals (its true! I have also kills some animals to preserve the ecosystem so its okay!! /sarcasm)
They supported ex-felons that give lectures to high school on how to make basic petrol incendiary device (Animal Liberation Fronts) they(ALF) are responsible for wrecking numerous medical facilities to “free” test animals subject.
I could go on but this should give an idea why people dislike the concept of vegan, yes PETA is an extreme example in this instance but they are the most outspoken animal rights organization that promote vegan lifestyle.
The society is plagued with countless problems to name a few : wars, overpopulation, extreme poverty in some parts of the world ,BUT LETS WORRY ABOUT THE KITTENS INSTEAD.
I don’t know what world these people live in that they can make the well being of an animal a priority but its certainly not one that I live in
I care about world events, as well as animals. Just because my morals include animals, does not mean my other moral obligations go out the window. I am very worried about the current state of U.S. affairs, and I am involved in The Green Party campaign. I live in a world, where there is slaughter of millions and billions of innocent lives, and people like you dismiss it like it's not a big deal. What a joke. What world do you live in?
Zoo's and circuses are often bad to animals, I have personally protested Wringling Brothers.
Peta sets a bad example for vegans/vegetarians, and gives us awful publicity, I wish they would go away, some of the stuff they do is ok, sane, other stuff.. not so much. If you want to look at an organization that does something useful, look at The Humane Society, Wayne Pacelle is one of the nicest people I've met, the guy has done a lot for animals in D.C. recently.
|
On September 21 2012 07:35 MadProbe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:20 frantic.cactus wrote:On September 21 2012 07:09 zatic wrote:On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for. Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-) If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption. So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism. Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study.
plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field.
http://rawfoodsos.com/about/
She pretty much sums it up. Lets try a little independent thinking.
|
On September 21 2012 05:59 ImAbstracT wrote:
There is also a little absurdity involved in our consumption of cow's milk. I mean we literally are consuming a substance made for an infant cow. Does that many any sense? But of course for humans to get that milk we have to take it away from the infant cows (which are sold as veal regardless). Milk is something we were made to consume as a baby from our mother during a very special stage of our development and not our entire life. Especially from a whole different species of animals!
There is absurdity in eating plants. Lettuce is a leaf of a plant. Fruit are the means of sexual reproduction in plants! These things were made to gather light from the environment and turn it into energy for the plant and spread the plants genetic material, not to be eaten by an organism from a different Kingdom!
Milk at least was made for the specific purpose of consumption.
|
United States5162 Posts
I think the question everything boils down to is this:
Is it better to never exist or exist only to be killed and eaten?
These animals wouldn't exist if we didn't farm them, and they don't have to suffer in order to be slaughtered. In fact, I would argue that non-factory farmed animals probably live a far better life than wild animals since they are mostly free of disease, famine, and predators. Of course factory farming is terrible, but isn't an indictment against all animal consumption the same way militant vegans don't invalidate veganism.
|
Can't hurt to try it for a month or two right? Maybe I will.
|
On September 21 2012 08:08 eyya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:54 Kich wrote:+ Show Spoiler +That's verbatim what I said. You aren't approached with hostility, you're approached with a natural defensive instinct as if you're accusing them of something.
I mean maybe you didn't realize this (I can't possibly understand how you wouldn't, but maybe..) it is incredibly, incredibly awkward and tense eating meat around someone who is vegan. You're doing something that is in direct conflict with an important, significant aspect of that persons life--if you're trying to get to know this person or even already know them but didn't know they were vegan this puts an immediate strain on the relationship from the meat eaters perspective because subconsciously you assume it bothers them.
For instance, if I were to tell you (which is accurate) that my largest and most infuriating pet peeve is people who eat with their mouths open. If you were someone who naturally eats with their mouth open (which isn't uncommon) how would you feel knowing that what you're doing is very irritating to me?
For a stranger? That feeling is minimal because you don't really care about that person, but for a good friend or a new friend it can be very awkward. The difference there being that I tell you upfront that it's something I don't like--but when you tell someone upfront that you're a vegan the assumption is that you disagree with eating meat and people who do it--whether you personally think that or not, that's the vibe it gives and that's peoples natural reaction.
This is not positively reinforced by the way vegans are often portrayed on their own media, they promote themselves willingly as people who spout doom and gloom and cast people who eat meat in a negative light. I dated a vegan, I heard the radio talk shows and the podcasts, I've read the books, most of them are hilariously biased and self righteous. Yes, I get that. Except that I didn't accuse them of anything and if they feel accused by my sheer existence I just conclude there might be more to it than wanting to please me. Would you feel the same awkwardness if a new friend of yours declined your invitation to a hotdog because their religion forbids them to eat pork? (not trying to make a point, just curious) I know people feel uncomfortable because they think I condemn them for what they do, but I still feel many of them wouldn't get so damn defensive if it weren't for their own suppressed doubts about the ethical dimensions of meat-consumption. edit: there is no such thing as 'vegans' as an entity, it's a heterogenous group of people with different reasons, different strategies and different levels of frustration. Frustration is a huge factor when you're vegan for ethical reasons and face ignorance on a daily basis. I can show you a fair number of people who defend killing animals in a hilariously biased and self righteous manner without much of an effort.
I would not eat hot dogs in front of that person out of respect for their beliefs.
And yes, I'm aware, that was kind of what I was saying.
edit: And no, that's purely speculation on your end. As someone who experiences this regularly, there is no suppressed doubts about the ethical dimensions of meat consumption, there is purely apathy. People have enough shit going on in their lives and making a drastic life change like straight up switching your diet like that is out of their scope of shit to worry about--people are more concerned with actually surviving, not surviving in a way that is less harmful to animals.
People who aren't vegetarians or vegans don't concern themselves with those thoughts. I mean it's a shitstorm example but, I'm an athiest--the thought and notion of god doesn't ever cross my daily life until it's brought up to me, for all intents and purposes I completely forget the concept of religion is even a thing. It wouldn't even exist to me if it weren't other people--same with vegans. I don't talk about where my food comes from, it doesn't cross my mind, I just got hired at an awesome company; I just moved into my own apartment; I'm looking for a girlfriend; I'm officially "on my own" and I have so much other shit to worry about that quite frankly they'll just have to wait.
|
On September 21 2012 08:09 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:35 MadProbe wrote:On September 21 2012 07:20 frantic.cactus wrote:On September 21 2012 07:09 zatic wrote:On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for. Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-) If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption. So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism. Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study. plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field. http://rawfoodsos.com/about/She pretty much sums it up. Lets try a little independent thinking.
Independent thinking implies independent studies, you can't really use a provegan site as a reliable source, they are going to be biased no matter what. Plus she clearly says she is a vegetarian since childhood and has no scientific background in nutrition, "reading a lot" about nutrition doesn't really make you an authority in the field even if I agree with her point that diploma's don't make everything and you can be good in a field without school.
So while she seems like a very smart person and probably has fantastic insight and advice on nutrition you can't use that as basis for unbiased facts.
Edit : Full disclaimer; I eat meat even though the more time passes the more I enjoy fish and chicken and less red meat, and I also believe our usual westerner diet contains to much fat and meat compared to our needs. Also remember that (and this is not directed at the person I'm replying to or anyone in particular in this thread, but against an argument I've heard many vegans use) Homo Sapiens are an omnivorous species and that encephalization has been tied to an increasing emphasis on meat in the diet. So while it doesn't make sense to eat as much nowadays it isn't abnormal or unhealthy either in reasonable quantities.
|
The name of this post should really be changed since the OP really did not mean for this thread to be a discussion about veganism but a platform for him to spread the idea of it. Giving demagogic assertions such as: “drinking milk is taking food from a baby cow, it’s absurd” or “an egg is a hen’s period” are not things that are said for the sake of discussion. Arguments like “it’s unnatural for an animal to consume the milk of another’s” are just plainly stupid since anything humans do is natural by definition – we are a part of nature.
Anyways, when one looks beyond these silly “emotion-stirring” arguments one can focus on the core reasons for one to choose a vegan life style. These are the health and environmental consequences (ethics I will comment on at the end)
“The China Study debunked” has 3,000,000,000 results on Google.
I’m not saying that these claims are true, but I’m going to say that relying on a pop-book written by a vegan enthusiast and believing that its “findings” are all true is just not thinking critically. It is especially important to just always be in the mind set of “slight disbelief” at any claims that one makes in a subject that the other has no knowledge of. I know nothing about nutrition and therefore I cannot say what is right or wrong but a grand claim such as “Animal protein promotes the growth of cancer” is just silly. Any protein from an animal promotes cancer? Even say if I cook that animal real good and reduce the protein to its amino-acids it will still promote cancer? It’s like saying “amino-acids from animal proteins promote the growth of cancer” (I can be a bit demagogic too)… Which is just stupid since the proteins of all eukaryotes are mostly made up of the same amino-acids.
Claims as such only prey on the mind of the ignorant. If you really want answers, go into Google scholar or a University library and check for real scientific articles about the subject that have been published in established journals, not some pop-book written by a man with an agenda.
Concerning environmental issues I’m pretty sure there is no denial that animals create loads of green-house gasses (fun fact: kangaroo emissions are low and is considered environment friendly meat (: ) but I’d like to raise counter points to think of the consequences of transforming the food industry to an all round plant industry: how many kg of plants do we need to replace a cow for instance in the human diet? I’m not just talking about the edible bits of the plant but the whole of it – most of the plant is made up of cellulose which humans cannot digest, unlike the cow which is fully consumed. Beyond that, how much land does it take to grow said kg of plants and how much water is consumed in the process compared to the cow (and the plants that the cow eats), essentially – what is the impact of such a change on water consumption and land occupation. The way I see it now there is a nice balance between raising meat and plants – the un-human-digested parts of the plants go to feed the does-digest-animal which is then eaten by the human. Just a point to think about.
Maybe it sounds like I’m pro-meat-eating but to be honest I really don’t know what is better, I just know there are silly arguments from both ends and one has to think critically about the subject and come to his own conclusions. The only thing I do think is worth discussing and everybody has a sense about is the ethical issues – since one makes his own ethics and there is no absolute truth, everybody is an expert.
As that said, I’m going to take back saying that ethics are up for discussion since any discussion about ethics is futile – there is no absolute truth. With that in mind, I’m still going to spill my thoughts about animal consumption: I simply don’t care if they suffer. I only care about my own welfare. It would be nice if they were treated better and had better living conditions as long as it doesn’t have an effect on the price and regularity of distribution.
TLDR: don’t take anything someone says as truth, especially in topics you have no knowledge in. To enhance your knowledge go to the right sources. Think of counter arguments to anything you hear. There is no absolute truth in ethics.
|
I feel that the benefits of responsible animal husbandry are often overlooked or understudied in discussions like these. I would be one of the first to denounce the terrible way our food system is being run right now. The amount of waste, cruelty and environmental damage and down right terrible quality meat that are byproducts of the current system are staggering.
But my experience with small local farmers and their mixes of traditional and updated land and animal conservation techniques can make a huge difference not only to our environment but our health and wallets eventually as well. Many ruminants such as cows and buffalo have evolved to have a symbiotic relation with their environs by their seasonal herding and feeding patterns that would leave areas properly fertilized as the animals moved on to more plentiful sources of food. Over years in areas like the American Midwest this created wide swaths of land that was incredibly fertile and bountiful that was unfortunately wasted by our settler ancestors who let most of that "Black Gold" be turned to dust and blown away in storms.
Its also possible to rehabilitate damaged ecosystems through introduction of various herbivorous mammals. Such as using goats to eat overgrowth in state and national forests to cut down on wildfire prone areas which then make it possible to do more controlled burning techniques to facilitate the lifecycles of various trees and other plants that need fire make seeds be released. You can then manage the population of said goats to provide people with healthy affordable meat that is water efficient and feed on local fodder.
Goats are fun!
I would post more examples but I am running short on time.
Also I feel that there really isnt enough unbiased data out there to be sure of anything since the whole issue can often bound up in various interests groups slinging money around.
Oh this is also some food for thought. It lists a few holes in various theories of how to eat right.
http://www.healthassist.net/blog/general/health-paradoxes-around-the-world/
|
Is there any information on the idea of ketosis vs a vegan diet with carbs? I stick to a ketogenic diet for most of the time (lost and trying to lose quite a bit of weight) and I haven't heard of any significant negative side effects. Same thing goes for paleo diets.
Anyone have any information on these two diets and how a vegan diet might be better or worse?
|
On September 21 2012 07:48 CptCutter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:25 SolonTLG wrote:I am vegan for ethical reasons. The health and evironmental improvements are a nice bonus, but not my reason. I see comments above like Veganism is extreme. Well, just because something is an ethical normal now, doesn't make it NOT extreme. Slavery was common in many counties about 150 years ago... Think about it. Finally, here is YouTube video discussing the fate of farmed animals in the United States. 10 Billions LivesYes, 10 billion animals die for food consumption each year in the States. thats relatively the same as saying the average american eats just under 5lb's of food a day. and im guessing you figure takes into account exports whereas mine does not. its assuming that those 10billion 1150lb bull/cows (and this being the largest? animal being eaten you could consider it an extreme) are not being exported. if were taking into account smaller animals (chickens and the like) the 5lb's per person per day will decrease rapidly.
No, the 10 billion number is just close approximation (due to rounding). It literally just counts the number of animals killed at slaughterhouses each year in the United States.
|
On September 21 2012 08:19 NeonFox wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 08:09 frantic.cactus wrote:On September 21 2012 07:35 MadProbe wrote:On September 21 2012 07:20 frantic.cactus wrote:On September 21 2012 07:09 zatic wrote:On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for. Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-) If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption. So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism. Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study. plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field. http://rawfoodsos.com/about/She pretty much sums it up. Lets try a little independent thinking. Independent thinking implies independent studies, you can't really use a provegan site as a reliable source, they are going to be biased no matter what. Plus she clearly says she is a vegetarian since childhood and has no scientific background in nutrition, "reading a lot" about nutrition doesn't really make you an authority in the field even if I agree with her point that diploma's don't make everything and you can be good in a field without school. So while she seems like a very smart person and probably has fantastic insight and advice on nutrition you can't use that as basis for unbiased facts.
The article is a foil with which to judge the China Study and the site is pro-health not pro-vegan.
"This site isn’t specifically low-carb or high-carb, vegan or carnivore, raw food or cooked food, or anything else that could be neatly labeled. My own experience as a (recovered) raw vegan taught me that diet-dogma is killer, so the emphasis here is on unraveling research rather than building an ideology."
Academics 'read a lot', they just get a piece of paper at the end. If you agree that diplomas aren't everything then there should be no problem with accepting her ideas .
|
On September 21 2012 08:23 CaptainHaz wrote:
Is there any information on the idea of ketosis vs a vegan diet with carbs? I stick to a ketogenic diet for most of the time (lost and trying to lose quite a bit of weight) and I haven't heard of any significant negative side effects. Same thing goes for paleo diets.
Anyone have any information on these two diets and how a vegan diet might be better or worse?
You should be able to find what you are looking for here http://www.marksdailyapple.com/
sorry for double post
|
Premise 1: You are what you eat.
Premise 2: Vegans eat nuts.
Conclusion: Vegans are nuts.
The few vegans I have met in my life provided rich support for that hypothesis.
I have no trouble with people who restrict themselves, but people who just
want to go out and preach, telling others what (not) to eat, are not on my list
of pleasant people.
|
Plus she clearly says she is a vegetarian since childhood and has no scientific background in nutrition, "reading a lot" about nutrition doesn't really make you an authority in the field even if I agree with her point that diploma's don't make everything and you can be good in a field without school.
So while she seems like a very smart person and probably has fantastic insight and advice on nutrition you can't use that as basis for unbiased facts.
From a quick 30 minute scan of her critical history, I'd say her ideas are worth examining closely. Of course, the data is complex (which is half her point) and needs to be read individually and analysed personally. I think that 1) her criticism was 'flawed' enough to draw a critique from the study's author (scientists, particularly established ones rarely if ever bother to do a detailed critical response to something that is outright wrong) and 2) she was keen and responsible enough to recollect and reformat her thoughts in a more academic matter suggests that her work is honest, unbiased (as much as the Kuhnian in me allows for unbiased science, criticisms of her work never assert she is malicious, only naive) and her criticisms are worth examining.
I'm personally wary of anyone claiming some kind of authority in nutrition after reading 'bad science'. the author in that makes it clear that nutrition studies is a field littered with problems and outright fraud. Basing ANY lifestyle choices off something like the china study is a really, really dumb idea.
|
On September 21 2012 08:43 Dagobert wrote:
Premise 1: You are what you eat.
Premise 2: Vegans eat nuts.
Conclusion: Vegans are nuts.
The few vegans I have met in my life provided rich support for that hypothesis.
I have no trouble with people who restrict themselves, but people who just
want to go out and preach, telling others what (not) to eat, are not on my list
of pleasant people.
yeah the wish to preach their lifestyle to others appears to be strong with vegans. I know a girl who gives her dog veganic food. Being vegan yourself is all fine and dandy, but a dog? That is borderline animal cruelty.
|
Veganism as a concept is fine to me. Eating vegetables for health reasons or because you can't stand the thought of animals being killed is a fine stance to take.
Under the stipulation that:
-You believe the rest of the world can still eat meat, just like Catholics should let the rest of the world have abortion
-you are very very moderate in animal rights. No torture of animals, but we need them for testing and food. An animal gains "rights" in my mind when they are a pet. If someone's pet cat died, that sucks. If a cat died, nature. No polluting nature or torturing animals, but yes farming animals testing animals.
|
any kind of people that never will be vegan are the Bedouin. When the hunger and lack of food is mainstream, veganism sounds ridiculous.
the vegan suffer a lack of calories, and are vulnerable in any starvation situation (Leningrado's siege)
|
On September 21 2012 08:09 frantic.cactus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 07:35 MadProbe wrote:On September 21 2012 07:20 frantic.cactus wrote:On September 21 2012 07:09 zatic wrote:On September 21 2012 06:59 Feartheguru wrote:
That study you described sounds SEVERELY flawed. The people who ate less meat are the poorer ones ( a rule of thumb in rural villages in China) who are more likely to have the diseases they looked for. Well if anything that would only strengthen his point wouldn't it :-) If I remember correctly from the China study the cluster with the highest consumption of meat was indeed the least healthy. HOWEVER, the cluster with the lowest (or non-) consumption of meat was not at all the healthiest, and outperformed by the clusters with a more balanced diet and moderate meat consumption. So, all other flaws the study might have aside, you could use it to argue against overconsumption of meat, but much less as an argument in favor of vegetarianism. Agreed. There are many flaws in that study. The media loves to create uninformed drama though. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ plz reference someone who is actually qualified to evaluate a scientific study. plz read the critique and make up your own mind. I'm a Pol sci/Intl relations major, but that doesn't mean I can't critically evaluate a text which is outside my academic field. http://rawfoodsos.com/about/She pretty much sums it up. Lets try a little independent thinking.
alright... try independently thinking about this:
A response to Denise's critique by the author of the China Study himself, Dr Campbell:
As far as her substantive comments are concerned, almost all are based on her citing univariate correlations in the China project that can easily mislead, especially if one of the two variables does not have a sufficient range, is too low to be useful and/or is known to be a very different level of exposure at the time of the survey than it would have been years before when disease was developing. There is a number of these univariate correlations in the China project (associations of 2 variables only) that do not fit the model (out of 8000, there would be) and most can be explained by one of these limitations.
http://tynan.com/chinastudyresponse
Analysis of her critique by a cancer researcher (first 2 posts):
(in response to the china study critique)
Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, you’ve merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of “R” (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. I’m a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While I’m impressed by your crude, and – at best – preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/official-responses-to-the
And here's another very thorough analysis of her critique that suggests she has not even read the book:
Regarding the title, it seems to be a strange question. Denise is undoubtedly a precocious, bright, and hard working young woman. Surely someone who had written a series of apparently thorough and impressive critiques of TCS would know the book like the back of her hand, right? How could anyone doubt whether she has read the entire book?
The question is actually quite understandable, and in the following series of posts myself and others will demonstrate why, in addition to scrutinizing the numerous claims she makes.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/official-responses-to-the
So... Can you explain to me why Denise's critique is still valid despite her poor and misleading use of statistics?
Or would you like to provide a serious critique by a qualified researcher like I first asked?
|
I try to have a balanced diet by eating a good amount of veggies and keeping a count on how much meat I consume.
One thing I don't understand is some vegans I know how have health problems, mainly being lack of iron and thus they take vitamin supplements. It's like hey.... did you know that those vitamin tablets could have been made from animals? You didn't see those pills being made, do you really trust what's on the label?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
