Absolutely absurd to think that the positions on vegan diets have shifted to the point where you can come close to considering this ‘misrepresentation’. That is so extremely dishonest, what an open afront to science.
Let’s take a very recent study to hammer this home.
A blood work comparison between diets. Done in Germany, among 120 or so people, so it’s a small one… But just extremely recent, and interesting since it took in a few variables that are normally skipped… But not important for you, since you probably don’t understand any of it anyway… All the dietary organisations stance on vegan diets were based on much much larger studies with ten of thousands of participants.
Conclusion
This study revealed that even amongst homogeneously
healthy, highly educated and physically active young
Germans, omnivore, lacto-ovo-vegetarian and vegan
diets result in measurable differences in dietary intakes
and laboratory biomarkers of health. Plant-based diets, in particular the vegan diet, exhibited more favorable
patterns of lipid metabolism and glycemic control. Our
univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the
risk of vitamin B12 deficiency is a major vulnerability
in plant-based diets; however, this could be overcome
with the use of oral over-the-counter supplements.
The detailed examination of supplement use and
blood biomarkers provided a first estimation that
250µg/d oral vitamin B12 taken over the course of
2years, supports adequate vitamin B12 status in
healthy individuals adhering to plant-based diets. The
significant lower use of vitamin B12 supplements in
lacto-ovo-vegetarians suggests an excessive reliance
on dairy and eggs as source of this micronutrient.
Exactly echoing the stance on (not just ADA AND) from dietary organisations that a well planned vegan diet is healthy and even has health benefits.
So you’re completely and utterly out of touch with the reality, and have a completely distorted idea on how these organisations come to their conclusions or how any of this works really.
by quoting the same organization with two different names as though they are two different organizations, and using quotes that imply this is their current position even when it is not, you are misleading people. that’s dishonest.
It’s only an example out of a long list of examples. It would only be dishonest if they, or other dietary organisations, reached conclusions that don’t support what I’m saying. But that isn’t true. It’s just an example of what has been the consensus among dietary professionals for decades.
The only one being dishonest is you and you’re awfully quiet in providing examples or engaging with anything in any substantially relevant manner. Which is typical for fucking idiots like yourself.
i’m pointing out your dishonest representation of the AND’s position, and your dishonest representation of the ADA as a separate institution. i provided all the information anyone needs to see that you don’t care about the truth as long as you have a link that you think supports your position.
Absolutely absurd to think that the positions on vegan diets have shifted to the point where you can come close to considering this ‘misrepresentation’. That is so extremely dishonest, what an open afront to science.
Let’s take a very recent study to hammer this home. A blood work comparison between diets. Done in Germany, among 120 or so people, so it’s a small one… But just extremely recent, and interesting since it took in a few variables that are normally skipped… But not important for you, since you probably don’t understand any of it anyway… All the dietary organisations stance on vegan diets were based on much much larger studies with ten of thousands of participants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10586079/pdf/IANN_55_2269969.pdf
Exactly echoing the stance on (not just ADA AND) from dietary organisations that a well planned vegan diet is healthy and even has health benefits.
So you’re completely and utterly out of touch with the reality, and have a completely distorted idea on how these organisations come to their conclusions or how any of this works really.
by quoting the same organization with two different names as though they are two different organizations, and using quotes that imply this is their current position even when it is not, you are misleading people. that’s dishonest.
It’s only an example out of a long list of examples. It would only be dishonest if they, or other dietary organisations, reached conclusions that don’t support what I’m saying. But that isn’t true. It’s just an example of what has been the consensus among dietary professionals for decades.
The only one being dishonest is you and you’re awfully quiet in providing examples or engaging with anything in any substantially relevant manner. Which is typical for fucking idiots like yourself.
The only one being dishonest is you
typical for fucking idiots
i’m pointing out your dishonest representation of the AND’s position, and your dishonest representation of the ADA as a separate institution. i provided all the information anyone needs to see that you don’t care about the truth as long as you have a link that you think supports your position.