1) they're overlooked because conditionally essential only means we can make a non-zero amount of them, but the amounts we might be adapted to expect could have relied on both exogenous and endogenous supply combined, and
-
-
2) many have positive effects when supplied in high amounts in such a way that "looks like" deficiency repletion. Many of these could effect brain function. But this is just a skeletal argument, not meant to persuade.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @zoeharcombe
Yeh, definitely not very convincing to me at least. So, I guess, back to the original point - I think it's not unfair to say that implying someone is suffering from a speculative disorder that hasn't been demonstrated even in epidemiological trials is "truly ridiculous"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @zoeharcombe
Heh, well, that was just me sketching how I would argue plausible mechanisms, which themselves are not evidence of a causal relationship, which is why to your original point I said "yes, when all we have is epidemiology and plausible mechanisms we should be careful."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @zoeharcombe
Haha sure, but I think the mechanism is more speculative than plausible at the very least, and generally the epidemiological evidence doesn't really support the claim, so...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @zoeharcombe
This is exactly how I feel about recommendations to eat plants.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @zoeharcombe
But in that case the epidemiological evidence is very consistently protective/beneficial. You can discount the evidence, sure, but that's different from the studies not showing the effect you're arguing for at all
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @zoeharcombe
It's rather parallel. Show me the epidemiology on no plants vs plants. Isn't that exactly the mirror of your complaint?
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KetoCarnivore @zoeharcombe
Oh, there's a wealth of epidemiological evidence for the good health of vegetarians. I linked to quite a few studies in my blog. I don't think it's necessarily causal, but the effect is extremely solid i.e.https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/337301 …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @zoeharcombe
You specifically complained about there not being comparisons in the mental health studies comparing no meat vs meat included. I'm saying there aren't any studies comparing no plants vs plants included.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Oh, right misunderstood. Yes absolutely true, but I thought we were arguing about whether vegetarians were at an increased risk of depression, not whether carnivores were
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @zoeharcombe
Ah. In this case I meant that this is how I feel about the basis of the idea that it's more healthy (vague, I know) to eat plants than not to. I think that hasn't actually been studied, and people are just using not-exactly-applicable epidemiology combined with speculations.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.