[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Fair enough, like most matters of language I suppose it's ultimately subjective and comes down to differences in personal interpretations. Specific context and perspectives will always have the potential change things but by and large I stand by my point in general application.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I completely agree with what you mean, but I would argue it is actually quite simple just not easy. People often talk about the two like they're the same but it's important to remember that at times simple things can be quite hard and complicated things may still be easy.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

From the conclusion of the paper you linked:

This review has found that there is no convincing evidence of major impacts of vegan diets on dog or cat health. There is, however, a limited number of studies investigating this question and those studies available often use small sample sizes or short feeding durations. There was also evidence of benefits for animals arising as a result of feeding them vegan diets. Much of these data were acquired from guardians via survey-type studies, but these can be subject to selection biases, as well as subjectivity around the outcomes. However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.

There is an urgent need for large-scale population-based studies to further investigate this question, with a particular focus on assessing the dietary aspects cited to be of particular concern, e.g., taurine and folate. For guardians wishing to feed their pets vegan diets at the current time, based on the available evidence it is recommended that commercially produced vegan diets are used since these are less likely to lead to nutrient imbalances.

While it does support the viability of specially formulated vegan dog and cat diets based on the current research it is important not to gloss over the fact that they also stress that the current research is lacking and largely based on self-report surveys. Personally I'm not terribly swayed by this paper one way or another and wouldn't take it as being definitive. Of course I recognize that more precise research has difficulties due to the ethics involved, but I'm also confident that we can do better.

I agree with what you say about the obsession with natural diet being weird by the way, but I think there is a reasonable disconnect in the leap from natural meat -> meat based pet food ------> no meat. For example, even if I don't eat the same food an early homo sapien would eat I still eat the same kind of food rather than an all mineral diet or something. That's not to say that I wouldn't if such a thing were viable of course, just that I'd want to be very sure first.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago

That's not a strawman. You should review your knowledge of informal logical fallacies and be certain of their application before leveling accusations of them at people, even if you really disagree with them.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago

That is assuming of course that all the women who said yes are in fact people being truthful and not creeps 'as-a-black-man'ing.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 months ago

Let's not jump to conclusions... he could be Bi.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago

Of course Anne of Green Gables is set in PEI so really it should have been set there. It would have been even funnier since they could probably outnumber the current population pretty easily if they immigrated en masse.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 36 points 4 months ago

I mean, I think that's just called science

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago

Well, because it financially supports scammers preying on people is why not. And many medical scams aren't harmless or innocent or may give people a false sense of wellness that can lead to them avoiding real medicine.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago

Yes and no. I can't speak to the particulars of this situation but differences in means matter even if they currently produce the same outcome. A toothless dog and a dog in a muzzle are different in important ways.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 64 points 5 months ago

Organic does not mean pesticide free. It just means they use so called 'organic pesticides' which are just as bad or worse, but they're 'naturally derived' which sounds better to some people. It's marketing BS. Any agricultural practice at scale uses pesticides and all produce should be washed before consumption.

[-] MediumGray@lemmy.ca 42 points 1 year ago

It's not a competition, they can both be shit.

view more: next โ€บ

MediumGray

joined 1 year ago