this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
1158 points (88.3% liked)
vegan
2609 readers
142 users here now
Please also check out vegantheoryclub.org for a great set of well-run communities for vegan news, cooking, gardening, and art. It is not federated with LW, but it is a nice, cozy, all-in-one space for vegans.
We ask that the you have an understanding on what veganism is before engaging in this community.
If you think you have been banned erroneously, please get in contact with one of the other mods for appeals.
Moderator reports may not federate properly and may delay moderator action. Please DM an active mod if an abusive comment remains after reporting it.
Welcome
Welcome to c/vegan@lemmy.world. Broadly, this community is a place to discuss veganism. Discussion on intersectional topics related to the animal rights movement are also encouraged.
What is Veganism?
'Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals ...'
— abridged definition from The Vegan Society
Rules
The rules are subject to change, especially upon community feedback.
- Discrimination is not tolerated. This includes speciesism.
- Topics not relating to veganism are subject to removal.
- Posts are to be as accessible as practicable:
- pictures of text require alt-text;
- paywalled articles must have an accessible non-paywalled link;
- use the original source whenever possible for a news article.
- Content warnings are required for triggering content.
- Bad-faith carnist rhetoric & anti-veganism are not allowed, as this is not a space to debate the merits of veganism. Anyone is welcome here, however, and so good-faith efforts to ask questions about veganism may be given their own weekly stickied post in the future.
- before jumping into the community, we encourage you to read examples of common fallacies here.
- if you're asking questions about veganism, be mindful that the person on the other end is trying to be helpful by answering you and treat them with at least as much respect as they give you.
- Posts and comments whose contents – text, images, etc. – are largely created by a generative AI model are subject to removal. We want you to be a part of the vegan community, not a multi-head attention layer running on a server farm.
- Misinformation, particularly that which is dangerous or has malicious intent, is subject to removal.
Resources on Veganism
A compilation of many vegan resources/sites in a Google spreadsheet:
Here are some documentaries that are recommended to watch if planning to or have recently become vegan:
- You Will Never Look at Your Life in the Same Way Again
- Dominion (2018) (CW: gore, animal abuse)
Vegan Fediverse
Lemmy: vegantheoryclub.org
Mastodon: veganism.social
Other Vegan Communities
General Vegan Comms
Circlejerk Comms
Vegan Food / Cooking
!homecooks@vegantheoryclub.org
Attribution
- Banner image credit: Jean Weber of INRA on Wikimedia Commons
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah yeah, youre living proof that published research is all lies and scientists are all fakers, we get it. And Im former president obama
Do you honestly think that the scientific consensus is that nutrient supplements don't work for treating deficiencies?
You can google the papers yourself, I didnt make up that 10-30%. This is a known issue with pill supplements, and a massive criticism of the industry. Its a known scam, a waste of money that means people are "fixing" problems by buying expensive powder pills that do nothing for them.
Theres a minor push among medical professionals to stop advising patients take supplements and instead reccomend specific dietary additions, but there is some speculation that the reason its not taken on by more doctors is a mix of inertial laziness of "good enough" medicine practices and supplement manufacturers paying doctors for their brand to be the reccomendation of choice.
But sure bud, your anecdote about a blood test undermines all of that from the ground up.
You keep saying 10-30% and then that they are ineffectual. So which is it? Clearly you then absorb 10-30% of the nutrients.
And yeah, I don't think doctors are being paid by private companies to advertise here in Norway. Especially because I get prescribed generic versions.
Generic versions are still a brand being advertised, you just arent the person advertised to.
If you think a maximal 30% intake of a deficient nutrient is enough to prevent the problems youre taking supplements for, youre absolutely the target demographic for this scam.
But you clearly are more interested in an internet gotcha than your own health, so by all means bud. I dont give a shit if youre sick, and if you dont either more power to ya
Yeah, I'm sure you know more than my doctor.
Right, right, right. Thats why I cited my personal blood test, and not multiple public peer reviewed research papers.
Anti science kooks are a riot man, you should take this show on tour
Hey, kook, did it ever once occur to you that the reason youre "totally real and definitely happened" blood test comes up in the green is cause your diet is already sufficient? And your doc has you buying useless powder for no gain?
No, couldnt be. Perish the thought.
Fine.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/do-i-need-vitamin-supplements/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6775441/ under supplementation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9710417/ Under importance of dietary supplements
https://www.who.int/health-topics/micronutrients#tab=tab_1
First link is literally irrelevant
Second link, under your chosen section, used child gummi supplements which I explicitly said are suspected to avoid the powder pill problem E:( also this is about starving child deficiency, the one situation where a 10% intake means you are going from ZERO to SOME, so unless you are a starving stunted child its hardly a relevant comparison.)
Third study has a 3rd hand report of some correlation at multi vitamin use and lack of deficiency, the source of which did not show causation and did not even control for other dietary intake sources or socio-economic factors as an impact on diet
Last link is just like the first, neither research nor relevant
Were you hoping I would see blue links, get scared, and not click them?
Government sources, as well as the bloody WHO out of all sources, is irrelevant. Yeah, sure. I'll just listen to a rando instead of an organization lead by the leading experts in the medical field as well as my doctor.
Jesus Christ.
I have noticed you also never bothered to link anything of your own.
You cited a private blood test, I assumed you wouldnt read anything I gave you. Also, Im not your mother, the issues with these pills is widely googleable.
Government wiki paragraphs with the quality, accuracy, and peer review quality of webmd are 100% not sources, thats correct. You also shouldnt cite them in your science paper this term. Notice how the actual peer reviewed studies got proper responses? Shocker.
Lmao, no sources of your own. Figures.
Easy to dish out but not to take, eh?
Hey, actually? I got super lucky with the first article I found.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/8/1096
So for starters, this is specifically for B12. Not intentional, as my point applies to all powder pills, but sure as shit topical.
Article details dietary B12, an equivalent intake pill B12 supplement, and a 4x intake pill B12 supplement.
The dietary? Restored the deficiency.
The 2 pills? Not only signifigantly less effective, but also almost equivalently so.
Thats insane. I assumed that quadrupaling the dose would improve the intake, its just a huge waste of money to eat 4-8 vitamin pills a day. But the study shows a quadruple dose is completely ineffective!
Also, (and I skimmed this specific bit from the results) it seems that the pill based intake was primarily in the liver. Now, the study correctly makes no causational link here, but that lightly implies that the liver is filtering out supplementals rather than letting it enter the dietary process. No clue if thats true, but a big possibility that I hope gets looked into further.
(Article also implies its not the powder pill form but rather the dietary type used in the pill. But it doesnt isolate powder sources of both versions of B12, so thats not conclusive.)
So, uh. Yeah. Big research article for you, the pill doesnt do shit, eating more of them also doesnt do shit, you need to be eating it in the food.
And yet it does improve B12 levels sufficiently to resolve what would be a deficiency for rats.
I never claimed that dietary nutrients don't have a better uptake.
In addition, while rats and humans are similar, it's still done on rats and not humans. Maybe instead of a daily pill the rats needed a pill twice a day? And if we were rats that's what would recommendation would be? After all, rats need a lot more B12 than we do. In addition, this was just 6 weeks. Maybe given sufficient time both methods work just fine? You should note that even the dietary B12 failed to raise B12 levels back to the original value. The timescale may just be too short.
Sure, interesting study, but it's not conclusive for humans.
As a last note, the study that seems to be most commonly cited is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2532799/
The study literally demonstrated that a quadruple dose only provided a partial effective intake for the liver and failed to provide enough for the brain, and you think a double dose would work? The kook strikes again!
Also, you understand that rats are used for nutrient studies because our digestive systems are insanely similar? "Hurr but Im not a rat" hasnt been a real rebuttal in a century.
Wild, who would have guessed the blood test kook would deny peer reviewed evidence. Oh, shit, it was me? I called that? Gnarly. Guess I was right, giving you the link was a waste of time.
Cited about what? That study appears to be about diagnosing cause of specifically B12 deficiencies and response to injections, which 1) has nothing to do with powder pill vitamin intake and 2) is talking about malabsorption, not suplementation of an intentionally abandoned dietary intake.
If you want to talk about a study, you need to say what your context is. Lol who am I kidding, the kook doesnt give a shit about science
Did you want me to go dig up those reports? I can do that for you when I get home, I just figured you got your blood test and you have repeatedly told me you do not value my input at all.
I wasnt about to waste the time reading papers to make sure I grab the right link for some numbnuts who wouldnt click em. Do you need me to do that for you?
Also looool, yeah bud its very easy to dish out a bunch of completely irrelevant links when you think a link is just a hollow gotcha that no one will read. Shame you couldnt find anything relevant, but if you need me to show you how to do that I am happy to.