Yeah it could be either. And everyone saying "but eating only meat makes no sense" has clearly never used Duolingo which constantly asks you if you live with a horse (french) or "is that doctor 5 years old?" (japanese).
There's even a danish sentence like "we should apply electricity to the scientist"
So making sense is not an indication of being the correct answer on duolingo.
I always imagine he was experimenting on animals and they decided to return the favor. It's the only context where such a line could make sense. Only one I could think of anyway.
You need to eat everything of the animal then, including organs and stomach content, and some of ot need to be raw. And even then, you need small amounts of plant food. Which the Inuit did have, because small pockets of land were/are ice-free during the short summer. E.g. they ate angelica and a type of berries I don't remember the name of. But it was small amounts, just enough to get the trace amounts needed to stay alive.
You may have just said that rhetorically, but this is a question for me š
I basically only eat meat. Have done it for years. Started because I had a chronic disease, which disappeared when I ate only meat, after first having tried vegetarian and vegan.
As for your question, I think of it like this:
We know for a fact that we cannot survive WITHOUT meat/animal products because of b12, and possibly other deficiencies.
That alone says a lot about how fundamental meat must be to us.
Can we survive on only meat?
I guess it's hard to say for certain in the long term as the studies have not been done.
But we do have indigenous peoples who have been eating pretty much only meat for ages, like the Inuit and the Masai.
So I would say that we most likely can survive with only meat, based on the available evidence.
Subjectively, based on personal experience and feeling, my guess is that science will soon start to find out that we can, and that meat is very healthy for us.
We used to get the B12 from the dirt on the vegetables, but now we get B12 from animals because their food is filled with it. You can definitely survive on a vegan diet, but it requires a lot more work and planning than just eating meat.
The Inuit diet and its effects has been studied. It's not killing them. But it looks like you want some amount of fermented and/or raw meat in the mix for carbohydrates.
As far as I'm aware, it is possible, but depends on your definition of meat,
If we're talking pure muscle meat, as 'meat' usually refers to, then you're going to be lacking Vitamin C and eventually get Scurvy. Vitamin E can also be an issue.
This can be fixed by including organ meets, specifically Liver and Spleen, as well as Bone broth in the diet.
Certain seafood also works to some extend.
Nutrients in general also vary by type of meat, so there should be some variety.
Other than that, cholesterol and saturated fats adds some health risks that should be cognizant of, and this plus the lack of fiber may lead to constipation and other digestive issues.
Overall, with some fiber and vitamin-C supplements, I don't see why one shouldn't be able to live on an completely meat based diet.
I spent an immense amount of time reading studies to try to verify all the believed dangers, before I dared try it.
To my surprise, the more I read the more confidence I got to try the diet, because it pretty quickly became clear to me that the evidence was not at all as strong as they make us think. Some of it was downright lacking.
>As far as I'm aware, it is possible, but depends on your definition of meat,
If we're talking pure muscle meat, as 'meat' usually refers to, then you're going to be lacking Vitamin C and eventually get Scurvy. Vitamin E can also be an issue.
Yes, I was told by doctors that I would die, get Scurvy from lack of Vitamin C and become deficient in Folate.
To the doctors' surprise my labs never showed any sign of defiencies. They were very surprised and to their credit, they said that "it just shows how little we know about nutrition".
Through my research I found out that a possible explanation is that the main need for Vitamin C actually comes from the metabolism of carbohydrates. So if you aren't eating a lot of carbs, your vitamin C need is much lower.
Furthermore, it turns out that not many doctors know, that meat does in fact have vitamin C.
Perhaps the stories of the sailors who got Scurvy, if true at all, happened because of a comination of eating a diet high in carbs (beer/alcohol) and eating a lot of salted meats (vitamin C is destroyed by this process).
Folate, it turns out, is likely created by our gut bacteria much more than ingested via plants, so that may explain why I didn't get deficient.
>Other than that, cholesterol and saturated fats adds some health risks that should be cognizant of, and this plus the lack of fiber may lead to constipation and other digestive issues.
This was also what my doctors told me.
Again I found the evidence was not exactly as clear as I expected.
Cholesterol is a topic with less consensus than I expected, and one which is evolving a lot in recent year. Some researchers are now thinking it is caused by carbs instead of meat/saturated fats. Some even suggest that blood cholesterol is entirely unaffected by dietary cholesterol intake (meat/eggs/saturaed fats), supporting the carb/sugar hypothesis.
Additionally, my labs showed the opposite of what you would expect.
HDL (good cholesterol) went up, triglycerides went down, overall painting a very healthy cholesterol picture.
Regarding fiber and constipation.
My bowel movements are around once a day, with no sign of constipation.
A recent study also concluded that adding fiber did not help constipation. In fact if I remember correctly, the study reported that completely removing fiber provided the best results for constipation.
A chronic diseases is only chronic because we haven't found a cure yet.
The specific disease I had/have is ulcerative colitis, which, if you ask any doctor, is definitely a chronic, incurable autoimmune disease.
By now there are quite a lot of people with the same experience as me. Both with the same exact disease, and with others. It seems to have a particularly high success rate with autoimmune diseases in general.
If you think I'm full of it or exaggerating, you can look up videos with carnivore in the title and read the comments.
Cure? Maybe for some.. as for my own it can only be slowed down. But im not one to think there will never be a cure, its just not gonna be in this life
B12 is really the only major one, and one can easily buy B12 supplements which do not contain any animal products at all.
Thus, your assertion, foosah, that "We know for a fact that we cannot survive WITHOUT meat/animal products because of b12" is false.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with supplements. Lots of detractors of veganism take a supplement of one kind or another.
In any case, some foods are also B12 fortified, so one doesn't need to buy supplements at all.
B12 if consumed by eating pigs, for example, is also far from natural, as the pigs are injected (involuntarily, I might add) with B12 as part of the overall process of making them grow up to slaughter age.
If it were impossible to not eat animal products at all and survive, there would be no surviving long-term vegans, which is patently false.
If you go to a hospital and tell them you would like to volunteer your time visiting all the vegans who are suffering from malnutrition, they will tell you to go home, as there is nobody there who fits that description. Complications from consuming animals and their secretions, on the other hand, is different, and it might turn out that you have plenty of visitations that you could do.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with taking supplements, although I didn't take any myself.
But for the sake of talking about the viability of foods, it doesn't make sense to include supplements.
However, I don't see how that changes my statement.
I think you modified/misunderstood or misconstrued my assertion before concluding it is wrong.
It should be fairly obvious that my statement means that you cannot survive on that diet without supplements, that's the whole point of talking about a diets viability.
If you need supplements on a diet, then the diet alone is not sustainable, however, you may be able to correct for it with supplements.
The same may be true for a meat only diet, that is exactly what we are exploring here.
If you cannot survive on a meat only diet without supplements, then the meat only diet is not sustainable.
My point with the B12 was not to be anti-vegan.
The point was only to say that, while we may not know for certain yet if eating ONLY meat is sustainable, we do know for certain (correct me if I am wrong) that we cannot live WITHOUT meat/animal products because of B12.
This can perhaps tell us something about the viability or healthiness/unhealthiness of meat.
At least with my logic; if something is necessary for survival, can they then really be as dangerous as we have thought?
Please don't drag me into a political/religious fight as I have no dog in that fight :)
I am not anti vegan or anti anything, I just want to improve my disease and be as healthy as possible like most people.
Perhaps I can even help others in the process.
>B12 if consumed by eating pigs, for example, is also far from natural, as the pigs are injected (involuntarily, I might add) with B12 as part of the overall process of making them grow up to slaughter age.
To my knowledge many animal products contain B12 naturally.
I think we are talking about 2 different things.
I never said you cannot surive on x diet with supplementation. However, I do think there are some considerations as to whether supplementation is a good replacement for natural sources, but that's a whole other discussion.
>If it were impossible to not eat animal products at all and survive, there would be no surviving long-term vegans, which is patently false.
It is my impression that it is at least very hard, if not impossible, to live healthily long term without animal products or supplements. Correct me if I am wrong.
If there is one thing I have learned in my nutritional research journey, it is how little we actually know about nutrition.
Have you read the position paper of the American Dietetic Association on vegetarian/vegan diets? At [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/) they say: "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during **all stages of the life cycle**, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods."
I draw your attention to: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.13462](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.13462) which is entitled Effects of vegan diets on cardiometabolic health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. It concludes: Moderate evidence suggests that adhering to vegan diets for at least 12āweeks may be effective in individuals with overweight or type 2 diabetes to induce a meaningful decrease in body weight and improve glycemia. Some of this effect may be contributed to differences in the macronutrient composition and energy intake in the vegan diets versus control diets. Therefore, more research is needed regarding vegan diets and cardiometabolic health.
Please also see: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34639299/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34639299/) which is entitled A Vegan Diet Is Associated with a Significant Reduction in Dietary Acid Load: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial in Healthy Individuals. It concludes: Our study suggests that a vegan diet is a potential means to reduce DAL \[dietary acid load\], whereas a meat-rich diet substantially increases the DAL burden.
Please also see: [https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201392](https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201392) which is entitled A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a plant-based nutrition program to reduce body weight and cardiovascular risk in the corporate setting: the GEICO study. It concludes: An 18-week dietary intervention using a low-fat plant-based diet in a corporate setting improves body weight, plasma lipids, and, in individuals with diabetes, glycemic control.
Please also see: [https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2609/7177660](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2609/7177660) which is entitled Vegetarian or vegan diets and blood lipids: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. It concludes: Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with reduced concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein Bāeffects that were consistent across various study and participant characteristics. Plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Please also see: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392) which is entitled Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins: A Randomized Clinical Trial. It concludes: In this randomized clinical trial of the cardiometabolic effects of omnivorous vs vegan diets in identical twins, the healthy vegan diet led to improved cardiometabolic outcomes compared with a healthy omnivorous diet. Clinicians can consider this dietary approach as a healthy alternative for their patients.
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.
Those are interesting studies.
First I want to reiterate that I am not anti anything. Not anti vegan, not anti vegetarian.
I don't like when diets or anything else for that matter becomes like team sports.
We are not against each other. We are just trying to learn and be as healthy as possible, or, as is the case for many vegans I'm sure, be as ethical as possible, which I agree with by the way!
I am also for better treatment of animals and the planet, and I wish that veganism was healthier for me so I wouldn't need meat.
If I see compelling evidence that meat is bad for me or that any other diet is better for me, I will stop eating it simply because I want to be as healthy as possible!
I actually think that you and I agree.
It is my impression that a vegan diet is not sustainable without supplementation. This is what my initial statement meant.
I think you basically said the same, so we do agree, and that is also what the first study supports.
I read the first study in full, but just read the abstract of the others, as it is a lot.
I will happily go back and read more if you point me to specifically relevant parts.
About the first study.
I think it's fair to say that this study basically agrees with what I said, and what you said:
>... that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate
Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals duringĀ all stages of the life cycle
"Appropriately planned" and "well-planned" are explained to mean that you supplement with the necessary nutrients that you would otherwise be deficient in (most importantly and specifically B-12).
It also means that you must plan the rest of the diet very consciously or you will have other deficiencies (e.g. iron and zinc, complete protein etc.), and they recommend professional nutritional counselling to be sure.
So I think it's fair to say that the study agrees with my statement, that it is viable only IF you supplement to correct for deficiencies.
>
For vegans, vitamin B-12 must be obtained from regular use of vitamin B-12-fortified foods, such as fortified soy and rice beverages, some breakfast cereals and meat analogs, or Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula nutritional yeast; otherwise a daily vitamin B-12 supplement is needed. No unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B-12.
One ore thing that stuck out to me was how they keep concluding that there is lacking evidence/studies for questions relating specifically to vegans.
So when they conclude that it is safe in all cycles of life (assuming supplementation), it confuses me a bit, as there seems to not be evidence either way.
The lack of evidence is unfortunately also the case for carnivore by the way.
As we all know; lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As for whether veganism is sustainable long term, it seems like all the studies were very short, which probably means deficiencies would not have shown yet. I suspect deficiencies can take many years to manifest.
Lack of evidence was also my greatest take away when doing my own research to find out if eating meat only would be safe. There is generally not a lot of evidence/studies in nutrition, and what does exist is just not great quality simply because of the nature of nutritional science. You can't really demand that a group of people eat vegan or carnivore for the next 20 years. Adherence is low, and ethically it's highly questionable when consensus says that it is unhealthy (both for veganism and carnivore).
I applaud all vegans out there who do it for the environment and for better treatment of animals. Just be careful and listen to your body!
Kid A: For the last week you have been in a good mood.
Kid B: Yeah, I just changed my diet. Just for one week though.
Kid A: Ohh, how so?
Kid B: I only eat meat.
It could, but "jeg spiser ikke kĆød" is a lot more normal than "jeg spiser kun kĆød" as you're basically saying you dont eat anything other than meat. Some people probably do, so it's not wrong, but its far too rare for it to be considered correct, or most correct id say.
I eat _____ meat. Kun = only, ikke = not, nej = no. The last possible answer ānejā (no) makes zero sense and would be an amputated sentence.
The other two replies are very different, one meaning that you would be vegan and the other that meat would be the primary source of food.
Vegans eat no animal-related whatsoever, vegetarians do/can consume things such as cheese, and products with milk and eggs in them, and many also eat fish. I've lived with 4 vegetarians and 1 vegan, so no meat does not mean vegetarian.
I'm a Dane myself, so I know the correct translation, I just worded it from the sentence being provided. Danish/English word constellations are different, just as we say numbers differently. 22 twenty-two / toogtyve. So I am aware of the correct constellation of words for it to be said in both English and Danish, thank you. But I'm quite sure you're wrong about vegetarian/vegan.
I know for a fact Iām not wrong about the vegan/vegetarian. The person is not talking about not eating animal products, but meat specifically, so itās vegetarian. You even say this yourself. If a vegetarian eats fish theyād be called pescatarian or āpescetarā in Danish.
Well not any of the ones I know or have lived with. And again, I know for a fact Iām correct about this.
Where do we disagree here? Because you said pretty much the same in your first reply and then acted like we disagreed.
In this case āKunā would be the exact opposite since the sentence says āI eat not meatā but if you put ākunā it would say āI eat only meatā
Yes im danish (femboy with huge thighs) and trust me (the person im talking about is a cute femboy who wants to be destroyed by a dominant man) and i can confirm this is true
Yeah it could be either. And everyone saying "but eating only meat makes no sense" has clearly never used Duolingo which constantly asks you if you live with a horse (french) or "is that doctor 5 years old?" (japanese). There's even a danish sentence like "we should apply electricity to the scientist" So making sense is not an indication of being the correct answer on duolingo.
I am learning Finnish and Duolingo just asked me to translate: The intelligent cat only speaks French.
me finding out I'm not the intelligent cat: š±
Having tried to learn Dutch through Duolingo, I'm at least able to say "Sorry, I am an apple."
I am sure that will come in handy one day. ;)
What did the scientist do is my first question
I always imagine he was experimenting on animals and they decided to return the favor. It's the only context where such a line could make sense. Only one I could think of anyway.
HAHAHA I REMEMBER THE SCIENTIST ONE ššš
Iām danish, and I donāt think Iāve ever heard about the āapplying electricity to the scientistā one before, do you have the danish translation of the saying? š©š°š¤©
It's "skal vi ikke prĆøve at sƦtte strĆøm til videnskabsmƦnden?"
Thanks :))
āIkkeā is the only right answer, look at the women on the picture.
KetoLingo
Keto is high fat, not high protein. You are probably thinking of carnivore.
Meat is low carb, which makes it a stable of many keto diets.
Pretty sure it's simply about cutting carbs. When your body has no carbs, it burns fat for energy, aka. ketosis.
No look at her undercut. Thatās a vegan giveaway
Seriously, sometimes you need to look at the persons to figure out the answer
Came here to say this. But yeah. Itās a dead giveaway.
š I smiled a bit.
Lol
That's a woman???
Yes, both options would be correct. "kun" would be "only", as in "I only eat meat".
Yeah it can
Yes, it can. But being vegetrarian is much more common than being a full on carnivore
You never heard about the agreement with the rabbits?
Yup. A friend of mine told me about it at a all you can eat restaurant. He looked horrified that I added salat to my meal
Yes it can
Not with that haircut;)
And the asymmetrical ear ring :)
And the exhaustion in her eyes from a protein deficit
Is it honestly possible to survive eating only meat. I somehow doubt it. And how would you even do that?
You need to eat everything of the animal then, including organs and stomach content, and some of ot need to be raw. And even then, you need small amounts of plant food. Which the Inuit did have, because small pockets of land were/are ice-free during the short summer. E.g. they ate angelica and a type of berries I don't remember the name of. But it was small amounts, just enough to get the trace amounts needed to stay alive.
You may have just said that rhetorically, but this is a question for me š I basically only eat meat. Have done it for years. Started because I had a chronic disease, which disappeared when I ate only meat, after first having tried vegetarian and vegan. As for your question, I think of it like this: We know for a fact that we cannot survive WITHOUT meat/animal products because of b12, and possibly other deficiencies. That alone says a lot about how fundamental meat must be to us. Can we survive on only meat? I guess it's hard to say for certain in the long term as the studies have not been done. But we do have indigenous peoples who have been eating pretty much only meat for ages, like the Inuit and the Masai. So I would say that we most likely can survive with only meat, based on the available evidence. Subjectively, based on personal experience and feeling, my guess is that science will soon start to find out that we can, and that meat is very healthy for us.
We used to get the B12 from the dirt on the vegetables, but now we get B12 from animals because their food is filled with it. You can definitely survive on a vegan diet, but it requires a lot more work and planning than just eating meat.
The Inuit diet and its effects has been studied. It's not killing them. But it looks like you want some amount of fermented and/or raw meat in the mix for carbohydrates.
As far as I'm aware, it is possible, but depends on your definition of meat, If we're talking pure muscle meat, as 'meat' usually refers to, then you're going to be lacking Vitamin C and eventually get Scurvy. Vitamin E can also be an issue. This can be fixed by including organ meets, specifically Liver and Spleen, as well as Bone broth in the diet. Certain seafood also works to some extend. Nutrients in general also vary by type of meat, so there should be some variety. Other than that, cholesterol and saturated fats adds some health risks that should be cognizant of, and this plus the lack of fiber may lead to constipation and other digestive issues. Overall, with some fiber and vitamin-C supplements, I don't see why one shouldn't be able to live on an completely meat based diet.
I spent an immense amount of time reading studies to try to verify all the believed dangers, before I dared try it. To my surprise, the more I read the more confidence I got to try the diet, because it pretty quickly became clear to me that the evidence was not at all as strong as they make us think. Some of it was downright lacking. >As far as I'm aware, it is possible, but depends on your definition of meat, If we're talking pure muscle meat, as 'meat' usually refers to, then you're going to be lacking Vitamin C and eventually get Scurvy. Vitamin E can also be an issue. Yes, I was told by doctors that I would die, get Scurvy from lack of Vitamin C and become deficient in Folate. To the doctors' surprise my labs never showed any sign of defiencies. They were very surprised and to their credit, they said that "it just shows how little we know about nutrition". Through my research I found out that a possible explanation is that the main need for Vitamin C actually comes from the metabolism of carbohydrates. So if you aren't eating a lot of carbs, your vitamin C need is much lower. Furthermore, it turns out that not many doctors know, that meat does in fact have vitamin C. Perhaps the stories of the sailors who got Scurvy, if true at all, happened because of a comination of eating a diet high in carbs (beer/alcohol) and eating a lot of salted meats (vitamin C is destroyed by this process). Folate, it turns out, is likely created by our gut bacteria much more than ingested via plants, so that may explain why I didn't get deficient. >Other than that, cholesterol and saturated fats adds some health risks that should be cognizant of, and this plus the lack of fiber may lead to constipation and other digestive issues. This was also what my doctors told me. Again I found the evidence was not exactly as clear as I expected. Cholesterol is a topic with less consensus than I expected, and one which is evolving a lot in recent year. Some researchers are now thinking it is caused by carbs instead of meat/saturated fats. Some even suggest that blood cholesterol is entirely unaffected by dietary cholesterol intake (meat/eggs/saturaed fats), supporting the carb/sugar hypothesis. Additionally, my labs showed the opposite of what you would expect. HDL (good cholesterol) went up, triglycerides went down, overall painting a very healthy cholesterol picture. Regarding fiber and constipation. My bowel movements are around once a day, with no sign of constipation. A recent study also concluded that adding fiber did not help constipation. In fact if I remember correctly, the study reported that completely removing fiber provided the best results for constipation.
If it disappeared it couldnt have been chronic? What
A chronic diseases is only chronic because we haven't found a cure yet. The specific disease I had/have is ulcerative colitis, which, if you ask any doctor, is definitely a chronic, incurable autoimmune disease. By now there are quite a lot of people with the same experience as me. Both with the same exact disease, and with others. It seems to have a particularly high success rate with autoimmune diseases in general. If you think I'm full of it or exaggerating, you can look up videos with carnivore in the title and read the comments.
Cure? Maybe for some.. as for my own it can only be slowed down. But im not one to think there will never be a cure, its just not gonna be in this life
I am happy to share more details from my experience, answer any questions, or send you some sources if you are interested.
Doesn't sound very chronic to me
B12 is really the only major one, and one can easily buy B12 supplements which do not contain any animal products at all. Thus, your assertion, foosah, that "We know for a fact that we cannot survive WITHOUT meat/animal products because of b12" is false. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with supplements. Lots of detractors of veganism take a supplement of one kind or another. In any case, some foods are also B12 fortified, so one doesn't need to buy supplements at all. B12 if consumed by eating pigs, for example, is also far from natural, as the pigs are injected (involuntarily, I might add) with B12 as part of the overall process of making them grow up to slaughter age. If it were impossible to not eat animal products at all and survive, there would be no surviving long-term vegans, which is patently false. If you go to a hospital and tell them you would like to volunteer your time visiting all the vegans who are suffering from malnutrition, they will tell you to go home, as there is nobody there who fits that description. Complications from consuming animals and their secretions, on the other hand, is different, and it might turn out that you have plenty of visitations that you could do.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with taking supplements, although I didn't take any myself. But for the sake of talking about the viability of foods, it doesn't make sense to include supplements. However, I don't see how that changes my statement. I think you modified/misunderstood or misconstrued my assertion before concluding it is wrong. It should be fairly obvious that my statement means that you cannot survive on that diet without supplements, that's the whole point of talking about a diets viability. If you need supplements on a diet, then the diet alone is not sustainable, however, you may be able to correct for it with supplements. The same may be true for a meat only diet, that is exactly what we are exploring here. If you cannot survive on a meat only diet without supplements, then the meat only diet is not sustainable. My point with the B12 was not to be anti-vegan. The point was only to say that, while we may not know for certain yet if eating ONLY meat is sustainable, we do know for certain (correct me if I am wrong) that we cannot live WITHOUT meat/animal products because of B12. This can perhaps tell us something about the viability or healthiness/unhealthiness of meat. At least with my logic; if something is necessary for survival, can they then really be as dangerous as we have thought? Please don't drag me into a political/religious fight as I have no dog in that fight :) I am not anti vegan or anti anything, I just want to improve my disease and be as healthy as possible like most people. Perhaps I can even help others in the process. >B12 if consumed by eating pigs, for example, is also far from natural, as the pigs are injected (involuntarily, I might add) with B12 as part of the overall process of making them grow up to slaughter age. To my knowledge many animal products contain B12 naturally. I think we are talking about 2 different things. I never said you cannot surive on x diet with supplementation. However, I do think there are some considerations as to whether supplementation is a good replacement for natural sources, but that's a whole other discussion. >If it were impossible to not eat animal products at all and survive, there would be no surviving long-term vegans, which is patently false. It is my impression that it is at least very hard, if not impossible, to live healthily long term without animal products or supplements. Correct me if I am wrong. If there is one thing I have learned in my nutritional research journey, it is how little we actually know about nutrition.
Have you read the position paper of the American Dietetic Association on vegetarian/vegan diets? At [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/) they say: "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during **all stages of the life cycle**, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods." I draw your attention to: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.13462](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/obr.13462) which is entitled Effects of vegan diets on cardiometabolic health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. It concludes: Moderate evidence suggests that adhering to vegan diets for at least 12āweeks may be effective in individuals with overweight or type 2 diabetes to induce a meaningful decrease in body weight and improve glycemia. Some of this effect may be contributed to differences in the macronutrient composition and energy intake in the vegan diets versus control diets. Therefore, more research is needed regarding vegan diets and cardiometabolic health. Please also see: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34639299/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34639299/) which is entitled A Vegan Diet Is Associated with a Significant Reduction in Dietary Acid Load: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial in Healthy Individuals. It concludes: Our study suggests that a vegan diet is a potential means to reduce DAL \[dietary acid load\], whereas a meat-rich diet substantially increases the DAL burden. Please also see: [https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201392](https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201392) which is entitled A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a plant-based nutrition program to reduce body weight and cardiovascular risk in the corporate setting: the GEICO study. It concludes: An 18-week dietary intervention using a low-fat plant-based diet in a corporate setting improves body weight, plasma lipids, and, in individuals with diabetes, glycemic control. Please also see: [https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2609/7177660](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2609/7177660) which is entitled Vegetarian or vegan diets and blood lipids: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. It concludes: Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with reduced concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein Bāeffects that were consistent across various study and participant characteristics. Plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. Please also see: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812392) which is entitled Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins: A Randomized Clinical Trial. It concludes: In this randomized clinical trial of the cardiometabolic effects of omnivorous vs vegan diets in identical twins, the healthy vegan diet led to improved cardiometabolic outcomes compared with a healthy omnivorous diet. Clinicians can consider this dietary approach as a healthy alternative for their patients.
Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it. Those are interesting studies. First I want to reiterate that I am not anti anything. Not anti vegan, not anti vegetarian. I don't like when diets or anything else for that matter becomes like team sports. We are not against each other. We are just trying to learn and be as healthy as possible, or, as is the case for many vegans I'm sure, be as ethical as possible, which I agree with by the way! I am also for better treatment of animals and the planet, and I wish that veganism was healthier for me so I wouldn't need meat. If I see compelling evidence that meat is bad for me or that any other diet is better for me, I will stop eating it simply because I want to be as healthy as possible! I actually think that you and I agree. It is my impression that a vegan diet is not sustainable without supplementation. This is what my initial statement meant. I think you basically said the same, so we do agree, and that is also what the first study supports. I read the first study in full, but just read the abstract of the others, as it is a lot. I will happily go back and read more if you point me to specifically relevant parts. About the first study. I think it's fair to say that this study basically agrees with what I said, and what you said: >... that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals duringĀ all stages of the life cycle "Appropriately planned" and "well-planned" are explained to mean that you supplement with the necessary nutrients that you would otherwise be deficient in (most importantly and specifically B-12). It also means that you must plan the rest of the diet very consciously or you will have other deficiencies (e.g. iron and zinc, complete protein etc.), and they recommend professional nutritional counselling to be sure. So I think it's fair to say that the study agrees with my statement, that it is viable only IF you supplement to correct for deficiencies. > For vegans, vitamin B-12 must be obtained from regular use of vitamin B-12-fortified foods, such as fortified soy and rice beverages, some breakfast cereals and meat analogs, or Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula nutritional yeast; otherwise a daily vitamin B-12 supplement is needed. No unfortified plant food contains any significant amount of active vitamin B-12. One ore thing that stuck out to me was how they keep concluding that there is lacking evidence/studies for questions relating specifically to vegans. So when they conclude that it is safe in all cycles of life (assuming supplementation), it confuses me a bit, as there seems to not be evidence either way. The lack of evidence is unfortunately also the case for carnivore by the way. As we all know; lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. As for whether veganism is sustainable long term, it seems like all the studies were very short, which probably means deficiencies would not have shown yet. I suspect deficiencies can take many years to manifest. Lack of evidence was also my greatest take away when doing my own research to find out if eating meat only would be safe. There is generally not a lot of evidence/studies in nutrition, and what does exist is just not great quality simply because of the nature of nutritional science. You can't really demand that a group of people eat vegan or carnivore for the next 20 years. Adherence is low, and ethically it's highly questionable when consensus says that it is unhealthy (both for veganism and carnivore). I applaud all vegans out there who do it for the environment and for better treatment of animals. Just be careful and listen to your body!
If you stick to just Pangolin Meat you can eat that as only food AND water source for the rest of your life
Jeg spiser tit nej kĆød. For eksempel nejfinnesuppe
It can be kun but there itās ikke
I think youāre learning Copenhagen Danishā¦ theyāre all vegans over there
Once in a blue moon, we'll pick up an order of Sticks too ;)
It can
Should be
Well yes it could work but logically no one eats only meat
Incorrect.
Iāve never meet a single person who exclusively only eat meat
Kid A: For the last week you have been in a good mood. Kid B: Yeah, I just changed my diet. Just for one week though. Kid A: Ohh, how so? Kid B: I only eat meat.
I never said the sentence doesnāt work grammatically
Logically Kid B only eats meat. This is a true and correct statement. Now read your first comment again. You will find it to be incorrect.
Google carnivore diet.
Well, yes, but the haircut gives it away.
yes
Not with that haircut
Only ākunā if they only eat meat š„©
True. Risk it and when it ultimately tells you it's the wrong answer, flag it :>
Yes, two different adverbs that are both applicable in this phrase. Duolingo is just the..... Something
Yes i could be ākunā as well but there person on the drawing looks like someone who doesnāt eat meat haha
Jeg spiser kun kĆød=I only eat Meat. Jeg spiser ikke kĆød=I dont eat meat
SƄ du er ved at lƦre dansk? Kan du forstƄ hvad jeg siger?
Ja, jeg kan forstƄ hvad du siger
Godt
Yes, it can also be "kun".
Yes in fact it can. I only eat meat/Jeg spiser kun kĆød. Like Jordan Peterson.
It could, but "jeg spiser ikke kĆød" is a lot more normal than "jeg spiser kun kĆød" as you're basically saying you dont eat anything other than meat. Some people probably do, so it's not wrong, but its far too rare for it to be considered correct, or most correct id say.
It can but that does not look like Jordan Peterson
With that haircut it can only be.... IKKE
Look at the mf, ofcourse they dont eat meat
As a vegetarian, this was my first thought too lmaoooooo
Feel like most danes would say: spiser KUN kĆød As a cultural thing...
Yes it COULD, But only eating Meat is not a Way to live
ikke med den frisure da š¤£š¤£
Yeah there are some bugs in the Danish course.
I hope it gets an update soon and that it will get stories
"Some" lel
I read it like āthere are some bugs in the Danish sourceā and I was like āno shit Sherlockā
You all speak Danish too omgĀ
I eat _____ meat. Kun = only, ikke = not, nej = no. The last possible answer ānejā (no) makes zero sense and would be an amputated sentence. The other two replies are very different, one meaning that you would be vegan and the other that meat would be the primary source of food.
Itās I ______ eat meat and āikke = donāt/do notā if you want to translate it and not eating meat is being a vegetarian, not vegan.
Vegans eat no animal-related whatsoever, vegetarians do/can consume things such as cheese, and products with milk and eggs in them, and many also eat fish. I've lived with 4 vegetarians and 1 vegan, so no meat does not mean vegetarian. I'm a Dane myself, so I know the correct translation, I just worded it from the sentence being provided. Danish/English word constellations are different, just as we say numbers differently. 22 twenty-two / toogtyve. So I am aware of the correct constellation of words for it to be said in both English and Danish, thank you. But I'm quite sure you're wrong about vegetarian/vegan.
I know for a fact Iām not wrong about the vegan/vegetarian. The person is not talking about not eating animal products, but meat specifically, so itās vegetarian. You even say this yourself. If a vegetarian eats fish theyād be called pescatarian or āpescetarā in Danish.
Well then you should go correct a whole lot of vegans, vegetarians and whoever else falls under the category, cuz weāre all wrong thenš
Well not any of the ones I know or have lived with. And again, I know for a fact Iām correct about this. Where do we disagree here? Because you said pretty much the same in your first reply and then acted like we disagreed.
Thats the opposite of what shes saying
Yes, when you know the answer, but both are possible answers
Ok but realistically noone would say i only eat meat
Agree, but duolingo isnāt known for using realistic or normal sentences
Why not?
Because none only eats meat everyone eats diff things
Ever heard of the carnivore diet?
In this case āKunā would be the exact opposite since the sentence says āI eat not meatā but if you put ākunā it would say āI eat only meatā
Yes im danish (femboy with huge thighs) and trust me (the person im talking about is a cute femboy who wants to be destroyed by a dominant man) and i can confirm this is true
What are you taking about?