I really don’t understand above @Maveric78
And to be honest I don’t feel in this specific instance that you with such statements approached things in a constructive way.
Help me understand where I (or others) did anything(s) wrong
-
A member (@Victoria24) creates a new topic and clearly states in both (a) the title of the topic ”How many are whole food plant based for longevity?” and (b) in the topic’s introductory post ”Anyone else plant based/vegan or pescetarian perhaps?” that she is creating a space to talk about plant based/vegan and pescatarian diets
-
Another member (@Rayk) asked questions ” I am not a vegetarian, but I do have a question….” that (a) is in the scope of the topic his question was posted under and (b) seems coming from a place of wanted to look into and understand something that he was not sure if possible/feasible (high calories and protein on plant based diets)
-
A third member (@Neo), takes time to write out an answer, provide avenues that @Rayk could take to perhaps learn more about his questions - entire introduction to my post was ”Might be helpful to look into the practices of some of these athletes”
-
The member who asked the question (@Rayk) gives the response a heart
label
Above seems to me like a great way for this overall community to work and operate:
- someone creates a topic of general scope
- anyone interested in that topic can read and if they want engage (staying roughly within the topic scope)
- members can crowdsource input from other members on questions they have relating to the topic that they have
- other members can volunteer their time to see if they perhaps can try to help others
Is above a ok description how things can work well here on the site? If not what is bad? If so, was there anything done wrong vis as vis that description?
—
Note:
I did not say that I believe that plant based is best for high calorie/high protein diets (which I don’t)
I never said I was vegan (which I am not)
I just
- heard a question “is it possible”
- thought one way to figure that out COULD be too looks into people who must have given it a lot of thought - with teams around them with a lot of knowledge - who I believe professional athletes are
- tried to provide some sources of such people he could look into more research (several have opened restaurants and at least one has written a book)
—-
With regards to “Arguing about diet is like arguing about religion, a complete waste of time because no one ever changes their mind.”
A1. Personally that has really not been the case. I have for instance for multi-year period been each of a carnivore, vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian and pescavegan.
A2. Another example is that I am currently experimenting with higher protein than I believed was optimal just a year ago (partially because of arguments people have made in this forum and partially because of sources on this forum that people have pointed too)
B. From this sub-topic on the site (that people have selected into) others seem to also have changed their minds on diets and the very question from @Rayk was from a non-vegetarian about potentially eating more vegetarian
—-
Finally, learning if X is possible is very different vs teasing out whether Y is better than Z.
For instance, human civilization knew it was possible to fly across the Atlantic when Charles Lindbergh finished the first flight, to land on the moon when… and so on.
To get a sense for whether Y may be better than Z requires (outside of math/physics types of contexts) sample sizes and statistics.
The examples of the athletes I pointed to were whether it may be possible. I did not intend to say it was better.
Please do let me know if I’m misunderstanding how this site works and what scope of questions and answers are suitable for this specific topic and/or if there is anything else I did wrong.