Because it has no plot, and the characters aren't likable.

>>35634696
'Healthy' has a different definition in different contexts.

If your definition of 'healthy' amounts to 'not diseased', then it's a very broad definition, because that does not in any way imply 'stronger than average' or 'above average fitness' in any way.

If however your definition of 'healthy' is 'stronger than average', or 'legitimately an athlete in a competitive sport', then just getting by on a plant-based diet is generally not going to get you what you need or want.

Most people are average or below average fitness and overall strength, and DGAF, they're more focused on surviving as long as possible -- regardless of their overall Quality of Life, or their idea of Quality of Life is far below what an athletic or above-average fitness person calls Quality of Life.

Therefore if all you care about is hanging on as long as possible before dying, then go right ahead and eat whatever low-density foods you want, and move around as little as you can get away with, and take no risks whatsoever. Maybe you'll stay deluded enough to die without actually acknowledging your regrets for the things you never did or even considered doing.

Or you can live your life to the fullest, eat what gives your body the best fuel and building blocks it needs to be strong, fast, and truly fit and healthy, take risks, reap amazing rewards, and die knowing that you actually *lived* instead of just 'surviving'.

Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years with no widespread negative health effects, in fact quite the opposite. Meanwhile even strict vegetarians become diseased, cancerous, and die before their time. There are many many more factors involved in longevity than just what you eat, and you can control only a small fraction of them. So you can worry your actual lifetime away about all of them and huddle in your house, afraid of your own shadow, or you can forget all the things you can't control and JUST LIVE.

Choice is yours, OP.

Read the criticisms by Walter Willett, Frank Hu, and Denise Minger.

>>35634827

Each of which have been refuted

>>35634805
Overly simplistic, generalizing, and a ridiculous amount of assumptions. Your post has no value, and cannot be used in a serious discussion of nutrition.

>>35635021
[citation needed]

>>35634805
You're retarded.

>>35635051
Colin Campbell's responses.

Chinese people eat their fallen coworkers from the assembly line so I'm not sure what this was proving.

>>35634696
It's literally just based on a false assumption and non-controlled association of meat eating and obesity related disease.
Meat is available in places where there is an abundance of food. In places where there is an abundance of food, people are likely to overeat and develop obesity related diseases.

It's that simple, and every pro-plant based activist out there wants to ignore this fact. They just glaze over the hundreds of millions of exceptionally healthy people who consume animal products on a weekly (or higher) basis.

>>35634827
>>35635021
>>35635114

For those too lazy to read what these fags are talking about

>china study - outrageous claims made by cherry picking data and ignoring contradicting facts
>refute - >implying >ignoring xyz >choosing stats to support your hypothesis instead of using facts to create proof
>colins refute of refute - >fuck off tard >i bet you dont even science you pencil dick faggot

>>35635114
I don't recall ever seeing one addressed to Willett and Hu. The one he wrote Minger, i.e.

http://nutritionstudies.org/minger-critique/

is mostly bitching about the correlations she made not not being controlled for confounding factors. But if you actually read her critique you would see she did in fact do this. The rest is just an ad hominem attack with no actual critique of arguments or methodology.

>>35634696
i read this and now i only drink distilled water to wash down my daily allowance of 500 calories of blue/raspberries in between 16 hour meditation sessions

i expect to live to 140

>>35634708
Kek

>>35634805
Nice compensating retard. Just admit you don't have the dedication of strength to get your protein from plants and live longer and be healthier

Watch

http://podbay.fm/show/825786664/e/1432119330

Scientists not selling vegan propaganda books and documentaries don't take it seriously. Nutrition isn't as simple as Campbell makes it out to be.

>>35635239
>is mostly bitching about the correlations she made not not being controlled for confounding factors.

Come on, you know this isn't true. Give his argument some credit at least.


>>35635197
The book contains more than 1000 citations of other studies. The main content of the book, is actually not what most of the book is about, it is only 1 out of 17 chapters in content. This is something you have neglected to account for.

>>35635388
Stu Phillips never has published any research in his life. Colin Cambell is one of the most prestigious figures in nutritional science. He has done research with MIT and Cornell and has released some of the most critical work in nutritional science.

Who are you giving more credit to?

>>35635658
>>35635641
Vegans are generally arguing for the life-extending benefits of plant based diets through analyzing broad swaths of populations. They are looking at average folks who don't exercise or pay attention to their nutrition.

When you have countries like UK, US and Australia, where vast amounts of calories and meat are available for a low price, the masses tend to overindulge, which leads to the health problems that are falsely attributed to meat and dairy consumption and should really be attributed to the ignorance and utter disregard of the masses.

>>35635277

what part of buying vegetables from your grocer requires a 'dedication of strength' tho

>>35635658
Those studies are missing other causes to what they are trying to attribute to meat based products.

>>35635658
>Stu Phillips never has published any research in his life.
LOL

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=VLu9hqgAAAAJ&view_op=list_works

>>35634805
>Most people are average or below average fitness and overall strength

I'm not sure you know how averages work m8

>>35634805
Associating the consumption of certain foods with living, happiness, excitement etc is what fat cunts do. You can't assume that a vegetarian does not enjoy life any more than a 350lb hambeast can assume that a fit person must be miserable because they deny themselves cake occasionally.

It's not peer-reviewed and it's full of selection bias. Just another fad diet book.

>>35635710
>They are looking at average folks who don't exercise or pay attention to their nutrition.

Except most of the studies account for factors such as this. That is a basic research practice...

>>35635732
Again, this is simply false. Do you people even read the argument you try to refute?

>>35635963
>Largest epidemiological study ever conducted
>over 1000 additional research articles to support its claims
>fad book

Are you even trying?

>>35635985
>>Largest epidemiological study ever conducted
no

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-epidemiological-study

>>over 1000 additional research articles to support its claims
...just like every other fad diet book. You realize there are millions of papers published on nutrition and biochemistry and a million more ways of cherry picking and interpreting the data?

>>35635985

It's not the largest, just the most comprehensive. The amount of things they studied and the level of commitment to accurately recording all of the data is pretty amazing.

>>35636033
>...just like every other fad diet book. You realize there are millions of papers published on nutrition and biochemistry and a million more ways of cherry picking and interpreting the data?

Dude who the fuck are you kidding? Are you really trying to argue that the average fad diet book contains this level of scientific background? You know that is not true. Everyone in this thread knows that is not true. Quit kidding yourself and accept that the term "cherry picking" doesn't apply here.

>>35636195
I read that someone analyzed raw data and realized that it doesn't support thesis presented in this book. Which makes look good on the surface, but in the end it's rubbish.

>>35636195
>scientific
>presenting correlation as causation
Should I laugh?

>>35636241
>I read that someone analyzed raw data and realized that it doesn't support thesis presented in this book

Why don't you fucking read the book yourself and come to your own conclusions? Because I guarantee you will not reach that conclusion. Anyone who actually has read the book knows it goes into way more detail than 99% of other nutrition books. Also, the person who famously debunked the book is an english major, doesn't know statistics and biology, let alone biological statistics. She interpenetrates everything in the book wrong, and makes the most juvenile of statistical errors in her rebuttal.

Do you really think Cornell University would just let some asshole take the most comprehensive study ever done and make a shitload of wild claims that have no merit and ruin their integrity? Read the fucking book yourself and come to your own conclusions stop listening to what other people tell you to think.

>>35636195
>denial

Wow dude, you really convinced me with those empty rhetorics. If you honestly think pop sci garbage for high schoolers = scientific background, your IQ must be very low and you should fuck off back to reddit.

>>35636264
Do you know anything about science or just what your high school teachers taught you?

>>35634696
>can't publish peer-reviewed paper because of drastic over-simplification and poor evidence
>publish it as a book instead
>10/10 VEGANS WERE RIGHT

errytime

>>35636285
>can't publish peer-reviewed paper

Except they have? It's published by the Division of Nutritional Sciences of Cornell University. Do you bother to look up anything about what you are arguing against?

>over-simplification and poor evidence

> "the Grand Prix of epidemiology."
>the most comprehensive study of nutrition
>over-simplification.

Amazing

>publish it as a book instead

The book simplifies the conclusions in the study. It was made for people like you who can't think for themselves, apparently it wasn't enough.

>>35636332
>The book simplifies the conclusions in the study.

which were already hyper-simplified themselves

>Division of Nutritional Sciences of Cornell University

and later retracted

>the most comprehensive study of nutrition

that looks at all of one country

you're a fucking retard vegan

>>35636342
>which were already hyper-simplified themselves

What the fuck are you even talking about? What are you even trying to imply? This literally has nothing to do with anything. You are just making up words to try to argue against something you don't have a clue about.

>and later retracted
What are you even talking about? Cornell still boasts about the project, it is one of their great efforts in medicine. Stop making up random crap that you heard from someone.

>>35636342
>that looks at all of one country

And somehow that means that its NOT the most comprehensive study in nutrition? Because it is.


I want you to admit you never read the book, never looked up the study, and are just parroting information you have heard from others. Just admit it and save me the fucking time.

>>35636332
the observational data was published and not the wild speculation by campbell (that he promotes as scientific fact in this book, other books, quirky alternative medicine websites, documentaries, and various internet blogs he runs) that an 8% protein low fat high carbohydrate vegan diet is the ultimate panacea free of adverse effects

this is contrary to mainstream scientific consensus on diet and no official medical organization in existence (and no pcrm and peta don't count) thinks an epidemiological study riddled with confounders and methodological limitations is strong evidence or sufficient to satisfy the hill criteria.

and before you appeal to his credentials let me remind you that there are people with even bigger ones who are aids denialists, anti-vax, homeopaths, etc

Because being a vegan is fucking boring and no long life living, annoying ass vegan who wants to spend their 'extra 20 years' on the Internet arguing will ever change that. In fact they will further prove my point.

>>35635892

No, he's right if you think about it. Assume that the total population is divided up into thirds-below average, average and above average strength-then 2 thirds of the population are of average or below strength.

>>35636272
>interpenetrates

>>35636442
Have you read the original data or the book yourself?

>>35636488
I'm on mobile give me a break.

>>35636386
>studying nutriotion, a BIOLOGICAL science, using anthropology

this alone should be enough to get blackballed in the scientific community

you're a shit eater and you argue from bad faith to suit your beliefs
show me microbiological, peer reviewed proof that anything asserted is true, and maybe I'll listen

cornell published it for hits
looking at a single country's diet is reductionist and willingly scientifically negligent of global trends to suit an ideology, like you're doing right now.

humans couldn't have evolved to eat meat if it caused even slight amounts of negative evolutionary pressure versus the cons. It's not how biology works.

>>35636535
There is so much wrong with this post that I refuse to address it. I'm going to bed. The fact that you want to come off as scientifically minded, yet would not hold your own diet to the same scientific rigor as the one you are criticizing, and at the same time committing a logical fallacy in your own very post, is outrageously ironic.

>>35636555
Nice refutation sperglord

>>35636282
Do you? If you did you would know the difference between the two.

>>35636272
Not interested, sorry. Especially because there's a lot controversy surrounding this book. I don't have time to waste for generally controversial info.

>people who live healthier lifestyles also happen to eat less meat

>>35636535
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. For a scientific experiment, you would always like to reduce any factors you are not analyzing or cannot take into consideration. Focusing on a single country would be one way to do so. The outcome of the experiment is then however only under those conditions: in China this seems to be true and it does not need to be true for other countries. Assuming of course that the science itself is done correctly.

Evolution never selected for any trait appearing after the age of 20 or so because after you have produced offspring it does not care about you anymore. The diseases they address in their study only usually appear at higher ages. But you would like to make it far past 20, right?

there is a pretty easy read called The big fat surprise that explains, with a very biased perspective why the china study isnt great.
you can read the book or listen to her and vinnie yap about it http://vinnietortorich.com/2016/01/nina-teicholz-big-fat-surprise/

You can also read gary taubes books, which are a more difficult read, but also have more data.

the bottom line is that nutritional anthropology has many confounding factors, and is not to be trusted beyond being interesting. There will never be a "great" study on what diet works best, because its too expensive and prohibitive to actually do good science on that topic.

for me (and my family), I have chosen a LCHF diet. I stay lean, my bloods are good, and i feel great. I do not stay in ketosis, but am in it 50-70% of the time. It does not hurt to consider it and see how you respond.

You know why Bulletproof (tm) coffee with the MCT oil is so fucking popular? its because when you have pure mct oil, it bypasses your normal metabolism and makes ketones that go right to your brain within 60 minutes. you literally feel it hit, and its great! i chose to live in that state 24x7 and ill let my body tell me if its not good.