Healthy vegan diet / plant-based - for health, save the planet, ethics, are you already? (72)

That depends on what is considered "real food", which you make clear in your next statement and includes meat, where you make logical fallacies through factual wrong statements that are based on your opinions / bias as facts:

The largest and strongest animals are and always have been (dinos) herbivores, and that body mass is mostly muscle, which is created from proteins / amino acids - how is that possible, if "protein can't be found in veg", there is also an issue with your statement in terms of that "a little bit of meat" consumption by humans is "a good thing", when B12 alone can be found in plenty amounts in a number of plant sources, plus there is always plant-based (vegan) supplements that provide that, in case you do not want to / can't get sufficient amounts of B12 from plant sources themselves.

Yes, meat has a lot of nutrients in them, but also "things" that are very harmful to the human body - heme iron, cholesterol and sat-fats specifically, which lead to cancer and obesity; you can get the non-heme iron from a number of plants, and the human body produces its own cholesterol and fats, thus adding that to one's diet is counterproductive to human health.

The conclusion is that, unless there is no sufficient access to caloric-dense plant sources (avocados, nuts, seeds) to equalize your energy expenditure - which is only true nowadays for survivalists / very remote areas of the world - there is no need and even is counterproductive to human health to consume animal products.

There is also the math aspect of it, which relates to land mass, water and food requirements for a sustained and sufficient "production" of animal mammals to provide sufficient B12 and "protein"... (btw, B12 is not produced by the animal mammals, but fed to them by the agriculture industry, you do know that, right?)

If you'd do the math (this was done for various countries and their regions, scientifically correctly AKA w/ correct numbers) you'd realize a number of things:

1. the landmass is just not there to sustain this - especially in smaller countries like Japan and the UK, and especially in the use of "free range" animals, which a lot of people go on about;
2. the huge amount of potable water requirement is wasteful and could and should rather be used for irrigation for plant-food production;
3. the huge amount of plant-matter consumed by all those animals for this mathematical model, could instead be fed to humans directly and that would already end world hunger.

Again, that's based on bias and make-believe, not factual data and science. There are a lot of issues with this line of thinking, relating in particular to negative ecological impact and human health - for the latter, you can find plenty of scientifically written articles via

nutritionfacts.org/?s=fish

Bias? Bias as facts? Make believe? You do know that , right? Opinion? not factual data and science? this line of thinking?

You asked a question and I obliged you with a reply and that's your response?

Where did you get the impression that insulting someone, for no reason is intelligent or even conducive to discussion/ It sounds like you're more interested in an arguement than anything else...

As for not factual science, then you can go check everything I said

You must be new to this subject? Because it reads like you are just parroting off stuff you've read once or twice but don't really understand, but it made sense to you so you must be right...

FYI you only have half the story and you can't see where you're getting it very wrong. But, given your attitude you can be sure I won't be wasting my time explaining it to you.

Go do a few more years reading , actually learn the stuff, and you'll understand what I mean....

And change your attitude while you're at it..