Suspected deficiency cleared up with b12 supplementation but –

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lou is one of the most prolific posters on the forum. We haven’t heard from him now in a week. Would anybody like to hazard a guess as to why that might be?

I was wondering the same thing. I highly doubt his skin isn't thick enough to agree to disagree in the odd post. That just doesn't seem like his style. Furthermore, it's kinda the nature of a discussion forum. We not all going to agree all the time.

I do like Lou and just hope that he's okay. I too enjoy his posting style and individual take on things. He's definitely an asset to the forum. Hopefully he's on vacation.


*
 
I have no problem taking supplements. I've taken medicine (thyroxin tablets) since I was 8 months old.

I think we are omnivore but thanks to science and the ability to create vegan friendly B12 we can live healthy diets without eating meat. My old guide dog was also fed vegan kibble which had the necessary supplements. My pet rats too.

But I don't eat a vegan diet because I think it's healthier. (Although some say it is. I'm not a nutritionalist so can't say). I eat a vegan diet because I feel strongly about factory farming and I don't want to be responsible for animal deaths when it's not necessary.
 
While off topic, this is simply in response to the quote below.

Veganism is strict.

I guess that depends on who's enforcing it.

In my humble opinion , while strict in a sense, it is not absolutely cut and dry. It's not like this is some elite club that decides if you're worthy or not. We are all very different people. Not everyone is going to want to go participate in the protest at the meat processing plant.

Protesting, while helpful and worthy, is not a requirement. This is not some religion or club with anyone to enforce such rules. Should you go protest and speak out? "hell ya!". I think so, but if my vegan neighbour doesn't go protest with the activists, is she less a vegan?

Many people also take to veganism for their health. While the philosophy of veganism is more than a diet, to many people it is just that, a diet. If they call themselves vegan, I am pretty sure, no men in green jackets will show up at their doors to boot them from the club. Furthermore, if someone eats trace amounts of dairy in some bun they had at lunch, no one is coming to boot them from the club. They can still claim to be vegan, same as anyone else.

The strict rules of veganism are somewhat subjective and not really burnt into stone like the ten commandments. If we're going to make it appealing to others, we, as vegans, need to stop being militant vegans once and for all. I am all for peaceful protests, and animal rights, but lets not make the carnists, in our daily lives, hate us even more.

Protesting is one thing, but cohabiting peacefully with others is just as important in my humble opinion.

I have lots of family and friends that aren't vegan or even vegetarian, and trust me, they definitely won't be convinced any time soon. If I was to play the strict vegan with them, it would only drive my credibility further into the ground. Vegans need to be clever, not militant.

That's just my two cents, please don't hang me out to dry for it.




*
 
@Veganite:

The quote you used "Veganism is strict" of mine was a snippet, which was responded to as if I meant something other than what I said.

My full quote was:
Sorry. Veganism is strict. The broad definition is strict. No animal products in the diet. 0. Zilch. If you eat some accidentally, no one is going to scold you for being a hypocrite. If you eat them willingly, then it says you still see animals and animal by products as food. Cheering for animals saving humans, catching bad guys or mauling hunters doesn't make you vegan - leaving them out of your diet does.

I didn't say one word about protesting at processing plants, being part of a religion or club (I have said the opposite elsewhere, that it is not a religion).

Perhaps you have me confused with an animal rights activist. I am not. As I've said in this thread, a person can be as caring for animals as they like, if they are eating them, their eggs, their milk, willingly and knowingly - they are not Vegan. It's the extended philosophy and concentration on animal rights (often favored by some when human rights and animal rights come into conflict, such as over use of land) that confuses some people into thinking Veganism is all about the rights of animals, and because we CARE SO MUCH, well, if you're eating them now and again, it's A-ok. Well, no, it's not. Once you start eating them knowingly and willingly, one is simply not practicing Veganism.

It would sort of be like a pescatarian claiming "I'm pescatarian...but I eat steak once a week/month". Uh, no, they are not practicing pescatarian, they have just mis-labled themselves.

Or a Vegetarian saying "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat pork now and again"...uh, no, they are at best a semi-vegetarian and are mis-labeling themselves.

Any person can resume their chosen diet and call themselves what describes them best, but c'mon, claiming to be something but willingly and knowingly doing the opposite is super confusing and dishonest. Transition time aside. If I wasn't eating Vegan, I wouldn't call myself one and wouldn't bother coming here for support and to support.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you have me confused with an animal rights activist

No, I don't have you confused. I used the comparison metaphorically, as in one of the "strict rules of veganism". The trace amounts of dairy in the bun was another example of extreme militant veganism.

For example, if my vegan sister ate trace amounts of dairy in her bun at lunch, even knowingly, I am not going to call her out on it, like she's some demon that claims to be vegan, when she's really vegetarian. That's the point I was making. Who does that help?

Besides, the title is not nearly as important as the over all cause itself.

*
 
No, I don't have you confused. I used the comparison metaphorically, as in one of the "strict rules of veganism". The trace amounts of dairy in the bun was another example of extreme militant veganism.

For example, if my vegan sister ate trace amounts of dairy in her bun at lunch, even knowingly, I am not going to call her out on it, like she's some demon that claims to be vegan, when she's really vegetarian. That's the point I was making. Who does that help?

Besides, the title is not nearly as important as the over all cause itself.

*

I see. Well, if the definition is not strict, then how far does it go in your opinion? So some cow milk cheese on my Black bean burger isn't vegan right? How about just half? A quarter? An eighth? When exactly does it become militant? I once posted one of my meals that used Old El Paso refried beans, and you said it wasn't vegan based on the ingredients listed being lard - well, the version I used didn't use lard.

If you think I'm being unreasonable that's fine. I am just seeing a double standard. Redefine Veganism insofar as the forum goes and the little will become more and more. Pretty soon butter on popcorn will not matter because "the damage is already done, it's already made". Mark Fuhrman's recipe ideas including chicken will be allowed to be included for the same reason. Eating milk, cheese, eggs or meat maybe just once a week will fit the criteria.

But a greater cause will be served?

Edit: I suspect Lou left because he was knowingly eating animal products and was confronted. It fits with his ideas about Fuhrman's dietary plan(which apparently includes meat), his view that we are omnivores citing b12 and cellulose metabolism and his saying that no one can be 100% Vegan. It also fits with him admitting to knowingly eating non-vegan chocolates (no trace amount of dairy there)If he listed himself as an Omni or even just Vegetarian, I wouldn't have reacted as I did when he started airing his views on what we are. But he did, in my thread, self labeled a Vegan.

But whatever. If Vegan is to be redefined as eating just a little meat/eggs/dairy knowingly and willingly, it may get a lot of forum members, and a lot of people confused as to what it means. And ultimately, it won't be Vegan. I notice some very long term Vegans (over a decade) have come here asking about other Vegan forums to go to. I personally think that may be a bad sign.
 
Last edited:
Who does that help?

You didn't answer my question...who does it help? If you can't answer that question, then I have to assume it helps no one.

In my opinion veganism goes as far as the individual wants it to. It's sort of like adapting martial arts. How far does anyone go in martial arts? It's something you as an individual decides. Veganism is similar, except there's no black belt. You either go all in and give your all, or you don't. Many people approach veganism in this same way.

Hypothetically speaking, would it not be better that a person eats a vegan diet, even if they still use other animal products in their daily lives (leather, honey, etc)? So they aren't technically vegan, but their contribution still helps the planet, immensely. Would you say it's better to smear their name all over the place and condemn them for daring to use the word vegan, or would you say they're making a better effort than most, and encourage them to try harder, in a positive way? Which makes more sense, positive re-enforcement, or a negative attack on their character?

Furthermore, I'm not saying you shouldn't try your damn hardest to make every effort possible. I think you should protest too, actually, but I also won't criticize you if you don't. I won't analyze your food either. I'd rather see you make an effort than none at all. That's all I'm trying to say.

I don't know about Mark Fuhrman. Wasn't he the cop in the OJ Simpson case?

Edit: I am not convinced Lou was consuming animal products, and he's also not around to defend himself at the moment, so best we leave that alone, please.



*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Emma JC
You didn't answer my question...who does it help? If you can't answer that question, then I have to assume it helps no one.

Definitions matter a lot. By the Watson definition, I'm not even Vegan because I use an unwholesome product: alcohol. Others wouldn't be either if they used stripped grains, refined sugar, oil etc. They aren't wholesome foods. Strict vegetarian then. But we aren't operating under that definition. The current definition is broad, but strict: No animal products in diet or clothing. They aren't necessary and are harmful. Either to the animals, to us, to the environment or all three. Agreed?

Definitions matter because the nature of defining things means to make necessary inclusions and exclusions. If I go out today and eat a candy bar knowing it had cow's milk in it, I would not be practicing Veganism. If, however, I still held to the label, then there is a danger that the definition would be changed, at least in my mind. It's suddenly become broader and less restrictive. If instead I just admitted that eating that candy bar with animal products in it was not Vegan, and that I was not when I willingly and knowingly did so, then I could chalk it up to a bad decision, and start a new day with the clear definition in my mind, instead of a twisted one.

Clear definitions help everyone. That's the answer to your question. It's not about demonizing someone because they made a mistake, it's to remind them that what they did is not in line with their label. If they choose to do it anyway, then they necessarily must twist the definition in their mind to retain the label.


In my opinion veganism goes as far as the individual wants it to. It's sort of like adapting martial arts. How far does anyone go in martial arts? It's something you as an individual decides. Veganism is similar, except there's no black belt. You either go all in and give your all, or you don't. Many people approach veganism in this same way.

It's not anything like martial arts. Martial arts are a set of skills that one acquires over time. I did them when I was kid. Basic blocking, kicking and punching. You can do them once a day, once a month, once of 3 months. Eating is something most of us do every day. Veganism isn't like martial arts in attaining more skills, it is simply an abstinence from animal products in the diet and clothing to the best of your ability. "To the best of your ability" means you have a willingness to do it. That is why no one will fault you if someone feeds you something they say contains no animal products but then it turns out they do. If one willingly eats, then they are not practicing it.

Hypothetically speaking, would it not be better that a person eats a vegan diet, even if they still use other animal products in their daily lives (leather, honey, etc)? So they aren't technically vegan, but their contribution still helps the planet, immensely. Would you say it's better to smear their name all over the place and condemn them for daring to use the word vegan, or would you say they're making a better effort than most, and encourage them to try harder, in a positive way? Which makes more sense, positive re-enforcement, or a negative attack on their character?

Simple. Just say " I eat a vegan diet except for.... " which is what I did when I started and still included honey for a short time. "Vegan, except for the honey I eat". So, not really, but closer than an omni. I knew honey wasn't vegan, so I kept the proviso in there until I dropped that too.

Furthermore, I'm not saying you shouldn't try your damn hardest to make every effort possible. I think you should protest too, actually, but I also won't criticize you if you don't. I won't analyze your food either. I'd rather see you make an effort than none at all. That's all I'm trying to say.

:)

I don't know about Mark Fuhrman. Wasn't he the cop in the OJ Simpson case?

*

Lol...I was thinking of Joel Fuhrman. A celebrity doctor that pushes a whole foods diet but allows for some animal products:

https:confused:/www.drfuhrman.com/recipes/categories/2/main-dishes-non-vegan

This is the guy I'm pretty sure Lou was referring to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sax
Sighs, I should have known you would take it that way....yes, it's apples and oranges, but the comparison to martial arts was accurate in the context I was comparing it to, in that you either wish to adapt to learning it, and follow the guidelines and the philosophy that it consists of, much like one adapts to veganism, and the guidelines and philosophy it consists of. In that respect it is the same thing.

I don't disagree with the definitions of veganism, but I do disagree with certain militant tactics used by some vegans to make people feel badly about failing or not conforming to their beliefs. It's that simple.





*
 
Which makes more sense, positive re-enforcement, or a negative attack on their character?

Point well made.

I would like to take this conversation back to just after Lou’s last post.

Meh, I feel sort as if my thread was hijacked ...

I am afraid that is about par for the course on forum threads. One of my old threads was about trolls and ended up discussing rabbits. Another was intended to counter veganism being seen as a negative and it soon led to atheism. The originator of a thread rarely retains ownership as shown in this one where the crooked path has strayed into whether we are natural omnivores and now into further foreign territory. I can’t remember when B12 was last mentioned. :)

None the less, the grievance is perfectly understandable. Unfortunately it was followed by the term “nominal vegan” and then comments that appeared to belittle previous posts by Lou.

Lou is then quoted: “A Whole Food Plant Based diet can include chicken …” This is purely a statement of fact. Nekodaiden then says, “?? How is chicken a plant Lou? Can you plant chickens and grow them out of the ground?” This comes across as sarcastic and apparently ignores that Lou was also quoted as saying, “But WFPB is just a diet. It doesn't contain the ethical imperative.”

I do hope that Nekodaiden will not take my comments as being any sort of venomous attack on him or indeed that I am accusing him of deliberately attempting to upset Lou. I note that he also said, “If this is not you, I'm sorry...”

What I am trying to put across is this: In discussions on a forum there are no facial expressions to indicate mood or intent. I feel we could all be much more careful and try to appreciate that it is not just what we say but how it is interpreted that matters. Phrasing and general overall impression are hugely important.

I read recently that the IQ of vegans was found to be one point higher than in the general population. It would not surprise a statistician that the bell curve might be slightly skewed to the right because people of higher intelligence would be more likely to consider the philosophies of veganism. In the same way I would expect a bell curve for considering the feelings of other people to be skewed because of vegans having compassion for animals.

Veganite has mentioned thick skins. We are all very different and in my experience even people who claim they have the hide of a rhinoceros can be deeply wounded. A few months ago a forum contributor felt the need to end her post with the request, “Please be kind.” I would hope that we could all try to do this all of the time.

I once vowed that I would keep try to my posts brief and to the point. My apologies for having dismally failed. :)

Roger.
 
Last edited:
None the less, the grievance is perfectly understandable. Unfortunately it was followed by the term “nominal vegan” and then comments that appeared to belittle previous posts by Lou.

Lou is then quoted: “A Whole Food Plant Based diet can include chicken …” This is purely a statement of fact. Nekodaiden then says, “?? How is chicken a plant Lou? Can you plant chickens and grow them out of the ground?” This comes across as sarcastic and apparently ignores that Lou was also quoted as saying, “But WFPB is just a diet. It doesn't contain the ethical imperative.”

"Statement of fact"

Actually not. In the scientific literature either “plant based” or “whole food plant based” is overwhelmingly a description

of the food

rather than

the percentage of that food in the diet.



“Whole food” - It is as Nature has provided, the whole corn kernel, the whole soybean, the whole wheat kernel, the whole potato, the whole rice grain, the whole pea.

...not extracts from these, not “pea protein”, not rice without the bran and germ, not oil without the olives, not white wheat without the bran and germ etc.

“plant based” - It is from the Plant kingdom.



Simple, straightforward, honest.





However, like all plain terminology it can be twisted (and has) to simply mean that the plants are whole, and the word “based” treated as a mere percentage of the food consumed. In other words, a meal of steak, baked potatoes and peas would be considered WFPB under this latter definition.



This is primarily the fault of people like Fuhrman who twist the term so that he can get more people to pay outrageous sums of money for his recipes and his supplements while calling them WFPB and still including meat – which of course appeals to a lot of people, specifically, those who do not want to give up meat and other animal products in the diet.

See how this works? Now the word Vegan doesn’t mean WFPB, it just adds an ethical component. Although Vegan used to mean real whole food from only the plant kingdom, since it almost always now means “no animal products, full stop”, opportunists like Fuhrman can capitalize on it to make a buck and confuse people into thinking it can include animal products in the diet.


It’s genius really. Capitalizing on the current definition of "Vegan" to mean primarily ethics, not whole food, people on Vegan diets under this definition can develop all kinds of deficiencies and hunger eating refined products, fiber lacking foods, chemically engineered products like protein extracts, oils and sugar isolates etc. The people who wish to avoid "Vegan deficiencies" (mineral and vitamin deficiencies) -those people can say they’re WFPB, maybe even think they’re vegan or nearly depending on the percentage of them in their diet, but still eat animal products, just so long as the grains, legumes, veggies and fruits are whole(the best of both worlds, so they think) But if by chance they won't be eating that many whole food plant products to begin with, there are of course lots of supplements, and Celeb doctors like Fuhrman are waiting to sell them.

Quite a statement from a person who suspects b12 deficiency in his system. Although I understand since creating this thread that chlorinated water and alcohol consumption may be big players in that in various ways.



I do hope that Nekodaiden will not take my comments as being any sort of venomous attack on him or indeed that I am accusing him of deliberately attempting to upset Lou. I note that he also said, “If this is not you, I'm sorry...”

Nope, I don't see your post that way. Nor was I out to deliberately upset anyone.
 
Last edited:
“A Whole Food Plant Based diet can include chicken …” This is purely a statement of fact.

"Statement of fact" Actually not. In the scientific literature either “plant based” or “whole food plant based” is overwhelmingly a description of the food rather than the percentage of that food in the diet.

"Statement of fact" Actually yes. It is a statement of fact.

I am not sure what you exactly mean by “scientific literature” but in normal parlance it is taken that that the B in WFPB is used literally and that there can be add-ons. My meal this morning was based on porridge oats but it wasn’t only porridge. I added sprinkle, pieces of plum and milk. Any substantial add-ons to WFPB are frequently frowned upon but are acceptable.

A quick google search gives these definitions: “A person who follows a WFPB diet eats a minimally processed whole, plant-based foods. They can consume a small amount of animal products as long as the majority of their diet comes from plants.” and “It excludes or minimizes meat (including chicken and fish), dairy products, and eggs, as well as highly refined foods like bleached flour, refined sugar, and oil.”

There has to be a distinction between "plant-based" and "plant-only". If we were all to not accept generally held understandings of terms then there would be no hope of our being able to communicate with one another. We would live in an Alice in Wonderland world.

“When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Humpty Dumpty.

Which brings me back to my previous post about being kind. Lou assumed a generally accepted definition of WFPB and was met with the deep sarcasm of “?? How is chicken a plant Lou? Can you plant chickens and grow them out of the ground?” I can easily see that Lou might feel unappreciated and very badly done to.

Furthermore my memory insists on telling me that the original response was, “?? How the f is chicken a plant Lou? Can you plant chickens and grow them out of the ground?” The use of a swear word would be received as an additional insult. It is just possible that my memory here is mistaken because the f seems to have disappeared into the ether with no edit being noted at the end of the post. That is a mystery to me.

An appeal to all of us: We can surely put a little more effort into considering the damage done by posts that needlessly upset or even drive away those who are vegan or sympathise with our cause. We can argue points vigorously without resorting to personal attacks.

“Please be kind.” Rory17.

Roger.
 
It was me that edited the negative "f" connotation from the post, and did so silently. I did not think an explanation was necessary. Swearing is not allowed on the forum. Vegan Forums is considered family oriented, which means there's no age restriction. While the letter did not literally spell out the word, it was easy enough to figure out, hence the removal.

I don't like taking sides, as a moderator, but it is kinda my job, providing I stay neutral in the actual debate, which I usually strive to do. That said, I have no problem digging into conversations and debates, which occasionally puts me in an awkward position as a moderator. I try my best to be fair with everyone. The forum obviously needs moderation, but on the positive side, it's usually a nice place to visit.

Nonetheless, I do have to agree with Roger on this. For lack of a better term, it was rather militant in nature to call Lou out in such a way. I don't know if this is the reason for Lou's departure, but I sincerely hope it isn't.

I tried treading around the subject, indirectly, but now my point has been made clear, thanks to Roger. That particular post was mean and unnecessary. I know it's easy to get heated and post something while it's fresh in our heads, but creating resentment and rifts between fellow members is not our goal here. We can intelligently debate various topics without this type of posting style.

I recently took the painstaking time to re-type someone's post they did almost all in CAPS. Normally, I would just delete the virtual yelling, but I took the time to re-write it all out without CAPS. Why? Because I like the people here, and figured they posted in the heat of the moment, and deserved the benefit of the doubt. The person was grateful and understanding, as I hope Nekodaiden is as well. I think we have a wonderful place, but Roger is 100 percent correct.

We all can try and put a little more effort in our posts. I, myself, am not exempt or free entirely from guilt. I am as human as anyone and make mistakes. Hopefully not too many.

Honestly, these things should be common sense, and forum etiquette. We are the regular members that should be setting an example for others. I'm not saying people shouldn't disagree. That is the nature of debating, obviously, but I'm just saying there's an intelligent way to go about it. Lets all try a bit harder to be nice to one another, and make the forum inviting for others. We shouldn't have to put "please be nice" at the foot of our posts.



*
 
“A Whole Food Plant Based diet can include chicken …” This is purely a statement of fact.



"Statement of fact" Actually yes. It is a statement of fact.

I am not sure what you exactly mean by “scientific literature” but in normal parlance it is taken that that the B in WFPB is used literally and that there can be add-ons. My meal this morning was based on porridge oats but it wasn’t only porridge. I added sprinkle, pieces of plum and milk. Any substantial add-ons to WFPB are frequently frowned upon but are acceptable.

What I mean by the scientific literature is the term as it is used predominantly in that scientific literature. For example, studies done that are listed in the NCBI. Here's one:

https:confused:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/ said:
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rising worldwide, especially in older adults. Diet and lifestyle, particularly plant-based diets, are effective tools for type 2 diabetes prevention and management. Plant-based diets are eating patterns that emphasize legumes, whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds and discourage most or all animal products.

Here's another:

https:confused:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/ said:
Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods.

These examples make it clear that animal products are heavily discouraged. To me that means that in the studies cited they are so small as to be extremely minimal or non-existent.

Your example of an oat based meal is a linguistic one that illustrates the problem when defined terms in science literature is overlooked in favor of a usage that might be assumed without that definition.

Unfortunately, the common language without the definition as in these articles is also exploited by for-profit-give me your money and I'll give you my recipes and expert advice and supplements people like Joel Fuhrman.
 
It was me that edited the negative "f" connotation from the post, and did so silently. I did not think an explanation was necessary. Swearing is not allowed on the forum. Vegan Forums is considered family oriented, which means there's no age restriction. While the letter did not literally spell out the word, it was easy enough to figure out, hence the removal.

I don't like taking sides, as a moderator, but it is kinda my job, providing I stay neutral in the actual debate, which I usually strive to do. That said, I have no problem digging into conversations and debates, which occasionally puts me in an awkward position as a moderator. I try my best to be fair with everyone. The forum obviously needs moderation, but on the positive side, it's usually a nice place to visit.

Nonetheless, I do have to agree with Roger on this. For lack of a better term, it was rather militant in nature to call Lou out in such a way. I don't know if this is the reason for Lou's departure, but I sincerely hope it isn't.

I tried treading around the subject, indirectly, but now my point has been made clear, thanks to Roger. That particular post was mean and unnecessary. I know it's easy to get heated and post something while it's fresh in our heads, but creating resentment and rifts between fellow members is not our goal here. We can intelligently debate various topics without this type of posting style.


*

My post was not mean. I'm blunt, and I call things as I see it. Lou admitted to eating animal products willingly in one of the food threads. Lou cites Fuhrman as a health reference that allows for animal products. Lou says Chicken can be WFPB despite the science literature that heavily discourages all animal products. Lou says you can't do 100% Vegan. Lou said we are natural omnivores and tries to back up his point in my thread using B12 and cellulose metabolism as proofs.

Lou was rebuffed by Veganite and myself on these points of what we are closest to (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore) and Lou left.

I called Lou out out of a multitude of indicative posts, not because I wanted to be "mean", but because it all indicated his bias and he decided to post in this thread on my issue with that bias.


My god. Get a grip. Somebody left. I notice there are not a whole lot of active posters here. So a lot of people have left. Maybe it's not in people's best interest to assume the reasons just because some of them are missed.
 
My post was not mean. I'm blunt, and I call things as I see it.

Same thing, exactly! The f-bomb alone was cause for a warning. You received none. I will just close the thread next time, after deleting your post. How about that, instead of a little cooperation?

*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.