I am satisfied that eating both meat and some veg is optimal for some including me. I understand Vegetarianism as this has been around for some time, and with the eating of fish and or eggs for some, I think is a safer choice than being strict Vegan.
Whilst in a modern context it is theoretically possible to get the nutrients required to be Vegan, I would not go down this route as without supplementation all bets would be off so I question this as a default position. If a friend were to do this I would keep my beak out unless asked an opinion, so it is a personal choice.
What I do hate is blind dogma. The Vegan YouTube hierarchy full well know that meat and fish have been in the diet of homosapiens from the beginning, so why try and tell me these cause modern diseases. Why hammer this danger point when they have the stats that the risk of cancer goes from 5 in 5500 to 6 in 5500 for copious amounts of processed meat (ignoring cofounders etc), and that is if you accept the methodology and the blatant mis-direction that there is an 18% increase risk. Why pretend the recent Oxford study was not biased when Vegans are behind it; if they could get persons similar to Ivor Cummins or Dave Feldman to show real non bloatware facts then great, but the "facts" presented are always tainted.
Giving mice a meat enzyme and turning on and off cancer, I am not interested, show the same with real meat in proportion to their normal portion sizes or with a creature closer to us, like a dog - if you can't then politely be quiet.
Persons like me know that it is easy to put just as much dirt on plants with the anti-nutrient arguments. I don't want any more Ancel Keys moments, just unbiased truths. Trying to tell me to give up meat and eat starch and soy, vegetable oil (yuk) and lower cholesterol, the very item my body produces naturally, no chance, but good luck to those who want to.
