You're confusing requirements vs thriving. Yeah humans can essentially starve themselves for months and survive, that doesn't mean it's optimal.
You miss the point: reducing protein intake to the small required amount is what is optimal for health.
Readit News0daystock commented on Study: U.S. dietary recommendations for protein intake are too low bigthink.com/health/us-di... · Posted by u/PaulHoule
McDougall promotes a vegan fad diet. Not sure why I would trust his literature when there's plenty of contrary scientific evidence today. Also, it's been 16 years since that article was written. Scientific consensus has advanced considerably.
Just because humans survive on very little protein doesn't mean there are not negative implications, notably on muscle mass and development.
Fad diet? Until recent history, and coincidentally before the prevalence of vast diet-related disease, most of the world lived on a mostly vegan diet. You are welcome to cite some of this advanced scientific evidence refuting McDougall or suggesting protein deficiency is a concern anywhere in the Western world.
next up: plants suffer and try to avoid suffering, vegans die out due to inability to reduce suffering or move the goal post to something selfishly convenient just like everyone else.
just a matter of time.
Flawed argument because animals still eat 10x the amount of plants vegans do. So if plant suffering was a legitimate concern, one would still be vegan, which is a lifestyle to reduce harm to animals.
A study by a pill manufacturer whose business is sickness, promoting a sick diet for more obedient consumer customers.
Adult humans require surprisingly little protein. So little, in fact, it's virtually impossible to be protein deficient eating an adequate isocaloric diet with even a modicum of variety. This is a very well cited page which explains most misconceptions and falsehoods about protein in diet https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/protein.htm
Your first sentence doesn’t seem to align with your second sentence. Can you clear up the confusion?
Survival is justification for eating animals -> These people are bad because they eat animals but could eat non-animals to survive. Are you saying survival is justified to eat animals only if there are no other things to eat?
You seem capable of looking up the definition of "survival" on your own. Anyway, this discussion is not worth having on this oppressive site, because any controversial opinion is just flagged and censored by the majority of fragile-ego dimwits.
Deleted Comment
Survival is inherently selfish. Something has to die for you to live.
That something might be a plant or animal. As long as you _attempt_ to minimize the suffering of what you're consuming, then eating plants over animals isn't morally superior.
It also doesn't really matter if it's a cow, chicken or frog, as long as you're not making the animal suffer pointlessly.
I already said I agreed survival is justification for eating animals. But this is not survival, this is sport, because they have a choice to eat something other than animals and still thrive.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment