Is…that not what’s supposed to happen?
I don’t have any other socials so I’m not too up on what the standards are.
- 1 Post
- 33 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: August 8th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
211·1 month agoIIRC licensing monopolies and capitalist bullshit.
old link but still : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26143407
1·2 months agoSure
if it ticks the two boxes then it’ll be useful to know :
1 : [ ] Independent
2 : [ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.
how would you measure quality of life for cats and their food?
Already answered, Here and Here
If you are asking for an example of a specific methodology, I’ve no idea, I’m neither an animal behaviour nor nutrition researcher.
In the same way i wouldn’t be able to provide a specific methodology for measuring orbital decay or the long term effects of language drift on emotional responses, because I’m not a physicist , linguist or psychologist either.
That’s one of the reasons for peer reviewed research by specialists.
I presume you would be happy if it was formulated and checked by independent animal nutritionists to meet the AAFCO(USA) and FEDIAF(Europe) guidelines for animal nutrition.
Seeing as we are going around in circles i’m going to streamline the process and make it easier for you by providing a checkpoint system.
I’ll be happy when it ticks both of these boxes.
1 : [ ] Independent
2 : [ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.
On this occasion your reference gets a 1 out of 2 :
[ X ] Independent
[ ] Has provided long term, reproducible, studies with reasonable sample sizes and empirical data based results.
they seem independent enough.
See above
Hardly tree hugging hippies.
You’re the only person using this phrasing, but you are correct in that they don’t match a phrasing nobody has claimed so far.
Hardly magical thinking.
I suspect the irony of claiming a lack of magical thinking by providing no actual evidence and just saying it a second time is lost on you.
the data so far in encouraging.
Again, the data so far is inconclusive
“We don’t know yet” vs “Sure, go ahead”
The food is engineered and independently tested.
Again, possibly true but beside the point.
it has the approval of agencies that exist to make sure animals are cared for.
So I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you have citations for this that aren’t institutions that actively promote (or have a vested interest) in veganism.
As I’m sure you can understand that such institutions can hardly be relied upon to be neutral.
that’s hardly magical thinking.
Belief in the absence of a plausible causal link.
In case you are unsure, a plausible causal link can be obtained through quality, reproducible, verifiable research.
Unless you have some of that (or some other proof) , you are basing your opinions on anecdotal evidence and inconclusive studies, they very definition of magical thinking.
It seems we are treading the same ground here so I’m just going to assume you have nothing to add.
sure. But the indications so far are that it is fine.
no, the indications so far are inconclusive.
like the original indications for asbestos were inconclusive or lead pipes/paint.
But it seems you are deep into your magical thinking so i doubt anything I’ve said will make a difference to you.
I hope it works out for you.
they do have world class teams preparing the food.
As i specifically said, this doesn’t address the actual issue.
In case i haven’t been clear, the current state of nutritional science on this matter has no consensus on mid to long term outcomes.
So taking the all of the experts in the world and creating the pinnacle of vegan pet nutrition will still garner a best guess, because, and i’m going to bold this part on a separate line:
THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL WITHOUT DOING THE ACTUAL WORK
It is potentially being done now, great, wishful thinking and anecdotal results are not a replacement for actual study.
Also, they have independent bodies verifying that the food is suitable.
Outstanding, and when they’ve provided repeatable results from long term studies with quality methodology and reasonable sample sizes that will make a big difference.
Until then it’s a gamble with potentially life altering consequences (for the animals i mean)
seems good enough for me.
Each to their own, your own subjective comfort doesn’t prove validity, neither does my subjective discomfort prove a lack of it.
For you the risk might be worth it, but to pretend there is no risk is delusional.
If long term , broad participation studies with rigorously reproducible methods came to the conclusion that a vegan diet is a viable option then i would be open to switching.
The issue isn’t which food is the most nutritious, it’s that the evidence available in general doesn’t yet support a conclusion on mid to long term viability.
You could have a team of world class nutritionist vets custom make you the best mixture and you would still have the same issue.
the meta analysis found no major implications to health.
What it said was the current evidence which is potentially bias and only from short term and limited quality studies indicates there are no major implications to health.
However, these beneficial findings were relatively consistent across several studies and should, therefore, not be disregarded.
Agreed, it’s a reasonably promising start and with all the caveats in place it does have some merit, but “should not be disregarded” isn’t the same as “go ahead, everything is fine”.
It’s hardly radical, and with proper care cats can be fed a nutritious and tasty diet with not animal products.
It’s not radical to think this might pan out to something beneficial, no.
But currently it’s still a gamble and to argue from a position that glosses over the many many caveats of the studies you provided is disingenuous and weakens your overall argument.
That you personally think the risk is worth the reward is your own business, presenting the situation as containing no risk is not.
Ah…i think i see the problem.
If what you’ve understood so far from my responses has been “this person thinks cat’s are being force fed cucumbers” then I’m not sure I’m best placed to help you, that’s a job for a professional.
Just for completeness sake I’ll address your response but it seems there might be bigger obstacles in play than i had first thought.
you do understand that people are not force feeding cats cucumbers.
See above
the food is indistinguishable from the meat versions.
incorrect, it might be similar but so far (again, according to your provided meta study) there has been no conclusive research to suggest an equal nutritional profile in the medium to long term.
See my previous response about gambling.
I’m not sure any further conversation on this subject is going to garner anything new if you are unable (or unwilling) to comprehend and respond to points raised.
Good luck.
so obviously provide your cat with nutritious food. if the cat is not eating the food then find something it will eat.
And that’s the issue, the short to midterm studies are relatively bias (as shown by your own provided meta-study), show you need supplements to stave off issues (taurine etc) and are somewhat inconclusive.
There are no long term studies.
It’s a “It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”
Of an option between a known good and a potential good , one of those is more certain to produce a good outcome.
at the moment these are new fields of studies.
Agreed, and making potentially life altering long term decisions based on new fields of study comes with risks.
I’m not saying it won’t or can’t work, I’m saying it’s a gamble. At the moment it’s a sketchy gamble based on incomplete fields of study with limited quality results and it’s a gamble you are making on behalf of another life that can’t consent.
If you want to roll the dice on this, that’s on you.
For me, i would consider that kind of risk to be too great for the sake of my personal beliefs.
Either way, if you are going to be trying to convince people there is no risk you’re probably going to have a hard time with anyone who understands how to read the papers you provided.
there is food available that is vegan, palatable and nutritious.
- Vegan : sure + supplements
- Palatable, meh, as long as they are eating it
- Nutritious, see above (read: inconclusive)
so there is no problem.
A strong claim to be making when the meta study you provide specifically goes out of it’s way to say “we don’t really know yet”
quality of life is subjective to measure at the best of time.
Sure, no arguments here.
The findings so far so do not demonstrate a problem if the cat is cared for.
Your own citation doesn’t even show that , so unless you have another that definitely concludes this I’m not sure where you are getting this from.
As i said above, at best it’s stating:
“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”
how else will you study quality of life from a cat?
Empirically and with a structurally repeatable methodology.
Preferably with funding provided by a somewhat neutral party.
The meta-study you provided specifically calls out the problem with self reported studies.
Whilst survey studies evaluating guardian-reported outcomes generally encompassed larger numbers of animals, these are subject to inherent biases due to participant selection, as well as the reliability of lay people making judgements around somewhat subjective concepts, such as health and body condition.
The whole section : “4.1. Evidence Considerations” specifically points out the inadequacies and limitations of the studies under analysis.
As does the conclusion section : “5. Conclusions”
Which to my personal interpretation says
“We haven’t found anything overtly damaging, some benefits even, but the research is lacking in scope, sample size and length is largely from potentially biased sources”
“If you are going to feed your cat or dog a vegan diet, use the commercial ones as they are less likely to be problematic”
emphasis on the potentially there, lest you think I’m claiming absolute bias in my interpretation.
I asked you to show peer reviewed studies that prove cats will not find vegan food palatable.
You asked for nutrition and palatability, the nutrition part is covered in the inconclusive nature of the meta study conclusion section, neither strongly for nor against until higher quality research is available.
Going back to a previous comment
You asked for peer reviewed studies into the palatability and nutrition of vegan cat food.
I provided.
Your provided studies made no mention of a particular palatability metric (i could have missed it however). The fact that they eat either type of food would imply a measure of palatability both ways, but if you have something definitive I’d be interested to see it.
cheery picking laws aside
That would imply there was “cherry” picking to be set aside.
cherry picking in this case would imply picking only the law(s) that supports the bias of the poster, to the exclusion of other laws that contradict this position.
I’d be interested in seeing the contradicting laws you think would make this cherry picking, do you have any links ?
2·3 months ago“News outlet” might be the most generous interpretation I’ve ever seen.
Do you have an example of this ?
Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?
Ah, so it’s a mutual block but initiated from one side.
Thanks.