694
Double A.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
694 points (92.5% liked)
Vegan
0 readers
1 users here now
An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.
Rules and miscellaneous:
- We take for granted that if you engage in this community, you understand that veganism is about the animals. You either are vegan for the animals, or you are not (this is not to say that discussions about climate/environment/health are not allowed, of course)
- No omni/carnist apologists. This is not a place where to ask to be hand-holded into veganims. Omnis coddling/backpatting is not tolerated, nor are /r/DebateAVegan-like threads
- Use content warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content
- Circlejerking belongs to /c/vegancirclejerk
- All posts should abide by Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 5 years ago
Lol read that paper. It's literally "we have no evidence but this might be a thing?".
the "normal" range for b12 is huge, deficiency is terribad, it comes from microbes in soil but we wash shit now. Sooooo many foods are already enriched out of caution (including animal products), b12 measurements are shit in general so data are crap, the liver stores years which further complicates things. There is good data on lower levels in plant base diets, there is good data on deficiency in poor people with shit diets and insane people with bonkers diets (frutarians etc). The scientific consensus is suppliment it because in general the body regulates itself well when given excess (unlike say b6) and deficiency is bad. That stands for basically everyone.
Likewise with other stuff, it's all basically "idk this might be a thing so maybe pay attention?" it comes from a place of abundant caution. The same way every paper ends with "erm so yeah but maybe we need to study more?". Also most nutrition science is junk (magical d3 anyone?) and most nutrition scientists have anti vegan biases.