Video is unavailable for watching
Show in Telegram
(Teil 1) Das Problem mit Veganer und 99.999999999999% der Leute (die auch nicht Vegan sind)? Sie haben überhaupt keine Ahnung wie man Wissenschaft richtig macht und verifiziert.
Nur weil du gelesen hast (hast du es wirklich? oder eher nur den Abstract?, wie die Mehrheit tut ...), bedeutet das nicht, dass was geschrieben ist wissenschaftlich korrekt!
What this position paper is writing "Vegetarian, including vegan, diets typically meet or exceed recommended protein intakes, when caloric intakes are adequate" citing 3 fake scientific sources (like ChatGPT is doing with no real papers ...) 1) The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets: Issues and Applications and Becoming vegan: comprehensive edition (two books wrote by Vesanto Melina, author of the paper https://perma.cc/HCW9-VT5Z) 2) the other is just writing "However, only one of these studies indicated that total protein intakes of 10 of the 25 vegan women were potentially inadequate (Haddad et al., 1999).) ... Adult vegetarians consume less protein in their diet than non- vegetarians (citing 5 studies before 1999)"
This cited position paper was released in 2016.
Recent SR, Review, MA (where on the papers there are even more details ...) EXAMINING FOR EXAMPLE 26 STUDIES WITH 9.862 PATIENTS, NOT A FUCKING BULLSHIT BOOK ... wrote "Vegan diets are lower in protein intake (particularly in essential amino acids) ... the protein intake of 31.3% of vegan males and 41.4% of vegan females was below the recommended levels of 0.8 g/kg body weight/d. 0.8 g/kg are still TOO LOW, because VEGANS NEED MORE PROTEIN PER DEFAULT, without talking clinical nutrition etc.
"Our meta-analysis of three primary studies showed a lower relative protein intake in vegan children .... Besides protein quantity, protein quality may be lower among vegans .... Vegan children may have lower intakes of energy, protein, and ... Especially studies on protein quantity and quality are needed ...." (🇨🇭Made, publiziert vor einigen Wochen ...).
Nur weil du gelesen hast (hast du es wirklich? oder eher nur den Abstract?, wie die Mehrheit tut ...), bedeutet das nicht, dass was geschrieben ist wissenschaftlich korrekt!
What this position paper is writing "Vegetarian, including vegan, diets typically meet or exceed recommended protein intakes, when caloric intakes are adequate" citing 3 fake scientific sources (like ChatGPT is doing with no real papers ...) 1) The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets: Issues and Applications and Becoming vegan: comprehensive edition (two books wrote by Vesanto Melina, author of the paper https://perma.cc/HCW9-VT5Z) 2) the other is just writing "However, only one of these studies indicated that total protein intakes of 10 of the 25 vegan women were potentially inadequate (Haddad et al., 1999).) ... Adult vegetarians consume less protein in their diet than non- vegetarians (citing 5 studies before 1999)"
This cited position paper was released in 2016.
Recent SR, Review, MA (where on the papers there are even more details ...) EXAMINING FOR EXAMPLE 26 STUDIES WITH 9.862 PATIENTS, NOT A FUCKING BULLSHIT BOOK ... wrote "Vegan diets are lower in protein intake (particularly in essential amino acids) ... the protein intake of 31.3% of vegan males and 41.4% of vegan females was below the recommended levels of 0.8 g/kg body weight/d. 0.8 g/kg are still TOO LOW, because VEGANS NEED MORE PROTEIN PER DEFAULT, without talking clinical nutrition etc.
"Our meta-analysis of three primary studies showed a lower relative protein intake in vegan children .... Besides protein quantity, protein quality may be lower among vegans .... Vegan children may have lower intakes of energy, protein, and ... Especially studies on protein quantity and quality are needed ...." (🇨🇭Made, publiziert vor einigen Wochen ...).