You mean that who study where they foubd that eating red and processed meat increased the chance of getting 1 specific type of cancer by 1%, and they were unabled to tell to what extend it was due to the meat or due to the processing? Ye.., that sure is concing evidence...
Also, what do you not understand about the point the video is making? We know for a fact that chemical that arent vitamins can still have health benefits (like proven in the breast milk example, or with sulfurophane etc). We also know for a fact that meat contains many of these chemicals. So even if scientists havent veen abled to connect specific chemicals to specific benefits, we still do know that foods contains many compounds that so something to our health. We also know that vegans are missing out on many of them.
Michael Rodriguez
same could be said of any mammal. Until you have evidence gtfo
William Wood
how do you know that vegans are missing out on the compounds that matter? im talking besides the vitamins and stuff, the ones that cant be connected
there is a severe disconnect between the information you have gathered and the conclusion you have come to with that information
honestly it just sounds like you came to the conclusion first and then scrambled some info together to make it seem plausible, youre grasping at straws
Angel Brooks
It depends on your definition of whats "matters". Sulfurophane technically doesnt "matter", it is not a vitamin or a mineral, yet it does have strong long term health effect. Vegans are literally missing out on thousans of similar chemicals that are found in meat. Even if we don't have hard evidence yet, common sense should tell us that missing out on all these chemicals that our natural diet is supposed to contain, might not be the wisest idea.
Alexander Roberts
You are most likely not wrong and your base arguement makes sense. The problem is that your argumentation is lacking. If you really want to convince people you will have to invest some more effort.
Henry Powell
>breastmilk tho
every mammal consumes breastmilk in their infancy, and they don't necessarily need any of those chemicals after breastfeeding.
You have not added anything to the standard magic property argument by talking about breastmilk
The breastmilk example is purely to prove a point, that those chemicals exist.
The reason why those chemicals in milk provide benefits is because mammals are designed to eat them. Their bodies evolved around eating it and utilizing them. The exact same logic aplies to meat. Omnivores like humans evolved eating meat, and utilizing all the nutrients and chemicals in it.
Jack Thompson
just because meat was a viable calorie and nutrient source doesn't mean we need it, or that we lost the ability to be frugivores like our ape ancestors.
There is evidence for the case of formula vs breastmilk, as far as you've provided there is not for vegan vs omni
Dylan Williams
God anti-vegans are so much worse than the mythical "preachy vegans" they talk shit about.
Also this video is shit because he is assuming all meat-eaters eat a perfectly balanced diet. On average, vegans are healthier because they take care about what they eat, not so much because of the specifics of their diet. On average, meat-eaters don't really watch what they eat so much.
