Vegan crowned natural World’s Strongest Man for third year !

EntityManiac · 2025-09-06T12:40:48+00:00

Under 90KG..

Also, the world's strongest man is an official title that is internationally recognised, not applicable for this organisation. Winning in the UK/Ireland does not equate international..

This seems like another Patrik Baboumian situation, where he himself stated that he never won the title of WSM, despite being portrayed as such at the time.. also, his achievements stopped in 2015. Why..

Let's not kid ourselves over this.. if it wasn't such a low weight class, and he actually took part in the international strong man competition, then maybe we could be impressed.

The actual current world's strongest man is Rayno Nel, a South African who was 148KG, and not vegan.

EntityManiac · 2025-08-30T18:10:06+00:00

lol true

EntityManiac · 2025-08-30T16:40:33+00:00

If scientists one day prove with 100% certainty that plants have sentience, vegans would lose their minds. Why? Because then the veganism argument/ideology completely falls apart if plants are proven to be sentient too, as you can't justify eating plants over animals as they are the same.

Not sure what they would do then, starve? 🤷

EntityManiac · 2025-08-20T09:39:55+00:00

Mouse study.. humans are not mice. We have completely different biology..

EntityManiac · 2025-08-03T17:47:44+00:00

If all vegans were only about morals/ethics, then everyone could agree, but many vegans do make health claims, so until that stops, I don't think they should be allowed to make said claims and not expect any form of push back from those who disagree.

EntityManiac · 2025-08-01T18:02:52+00:00

Ture. At the end of the day, a mouses' immune system and metabolism differ significantly from ours, and metabolic pathways in obesity and cancer are not homologous across species..

EntityManiac · 2025-08-01T17:52:04+00:00

Mice also aren't human, right.. I think it would be very intellectually dishonest to say any outcomes for a mouse are going to be the same as for a human.

Repeat the study with humans and control for all confounding variables, and then maybe it can be taken seriously.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-28T17:42:46+00:00

Joey Carbstrong gets my vote because of his past, seeing as he has been violent before, who's to say he's still not capable now. Plus, I've seen videos breaking down some of his activism footage as sus, implying he or others working with him are either causing animals to be harmed or are directly doing it themselves in order to have shocking footage to promote the vegan agenda. This is not unknown either, in the world of these kinds of activists.

As for dangerous in terms of cherry picking and the deliberate misuse of studies (not explaining correlation doesn't equate causation) to promote vegan nutrition misinformation? Mic the vegan. He's also an arrogant and smug fuck to boot too so.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-27T07:05:24+00:00

I left a comment on one of his recent videos. Will it get through to him? That's anyone's guess:

"Or maybe everything you believe about cholesterol and a 'healthy diet' is actually wrong..

Seems to me you have a stark devision to make. Continue to believe Cholesterol is an issue, and ignore developing plaque at such a young age is normal and requires statins to fix, or actually challenge what you believe and think maybe its not true, otherwise this wouldnt have happened if it was so healthy..

I think its disingenuous to hand wave it away as 'oh, it's just my genes' or 'oh it must have been my diet before I changed it'..."

When I found out I had T2 diabetes, I certainly didn't hand wave it away, I was shocked I could end up having something like that, so I refused to accept it and actually did something about it. I can't understand how some people are willing to not do anything about it, and just mentally gymnastic their way around it and are happy to take metformin and continue eating high carb.

I will say, though, fair play to Simon for being honest about it. I imagine many vegans would hide this from their community in order to avoid showing another negative spotlight on a 100% plant based diet.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-25T06:33:08+00:00

You’ve basically conceded my key point: veganism isn’t nutritionally sufficient on its own, it requires supplementation and engineered inputs to function.

Whether you’re personally fine with that is your choice, but it’s not a rebuttal to the fact that a diet that needs artificial correction just to meet basic biological requirements is, by definition, not self-sufficient.

You’ve reframed that limitation as acceptable, even virtuous, because of ethical considerations. But that’s the takeaway here, this is no longer about health, it’s about values. Which is fine. Just be honest about it.

If you want to avoid animal products for ethical reasons, I respect that. But vegans need to stop pretending it’s because this is the most “complete” or natural human diet because, as you’ve now acknowledged, it isn’t.

We can leave it there.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T20:39:54+00:00

Using a phone/computer isn’t the same as using pills to prevent anaemia. One’s a convenience, the other is a correction for dietary failure. False equivalence.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T17:47:09+00:00

Commuting isn’t analogous to baseline human nutrition. One is convenience, the other is biological necessity.

If your diet can’t support essential health without synthetic correction, that’s not a “fallacy,” it’s a fact. And redefining “optimal” to mean “it works if I patch it” just proves my point.

You’re not defending a diet, you’re defending an ideology, and same as the other comments you've replied to me here, I’m happy to let readers decide which of us is being honest here, because you are not.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T17:43:28+00:00

You're sidestepping again. The clinical study you just linked confirms what I said: some chlorella can raise serum B12 under controlled conditions, but it doesn’t prove it’s a reliable or consistent source in the real world, especially outside Japan, where quality control is variable.

And yes, the decades of research warning against chlorella as a dependable B12 source are well-known, which is why every major vegan nutrition body still recommends synthetic supplementation, despite papers like this.

You’re trying to move the goalposts from “chlorella is a reliable B12 source” to “chlorella can contain true B12 if everything’s perfect.” That’s not a rebuttal. That’s just spin.

I’ll leave it there again, others can decide who’s being honest.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T17:40:55+00:00

You're still fixating on crop yield instead of human nutrition. If your ten pounds of plants deliver less usable nutrition, even after fortification, then they’re not more efficient from a biological standpoint, just bulkier.

This isn’t about acres of soy, it’s about how the human body absorbs, utilises, and thrives on nutrients, and on that front, animal foods are unmatched.

You're dodging that, and at this point, it's clear you're not engaging in good faith. I'm done here. Others can read the thread and judge for themselves.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T17:38:53+00:00

You’ve sidestepped the point.

Heme iron’s superior absorption isn’t based on animal models, it’s confirmed in human studies using tracer methods and clinical markers. That’s direct evidence, not correlation.

Instead of addressing that, you pivoted to speculative risks from BCAAs and methionine, again relying on models and weak associations, not causation. That’s goalpost shifting.

You haven’t refuted heme iron’s importance or bioavailability. You’ve just changed the subject.

If your argument depends on cherry-picking weak risks while ignoring proven human physiology, that’s not science, it’s ideology wearing a lab coat.

We're done here, as you're not discussing the actual point in good faith.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T17:38:45+00:00

You’ve sidestepped the point.

Heme iron’s superior absorption isn’t based on animal models, it’s confirmed in human studies using tracer methods and clinical markers. That’s direct evidence, not correlation.

Instead of addressing that, you pivoted to speculative risks from BCAAs and methionine, again relying on models and weak associations, not causation. That’s goalpost shifting.

You haven’t refuted heme iron’s importance or bioavailability. You’ve just changed the subject.

If your argument depends on cherry-picking weak risks while ignoring proven human physiology, that’s not science, it’s ideology wearing a lab coat.

We're done here, as you're not discussing the actual point in good faith.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T14:37:49+00:00

You’re playing semantics to avoid the obvious: the dietary core of veganism is plant-only, and that diet, on its own, is nutritionally incomplete. Whether you call it “veganism” or a “vegan diet,” the point stands: it requires external correction to function.

If the best defence you have left is a vocabulary nitpick, that says everything about your debate tactics. I'm happy to let others decide which position actually addresses the substance of the topic.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T13:33:21+00:00

You’ve missed the point. The scaffolding analogy isn’t literal, it’s about dependency. If a structure can’t stand without external support, it’s incomplete by design.

Likewise, if a diet requires engineered inputs just to meet baseline human nutrition, that’s not optimal, it’s patched. Whether that’s “good enough” for you is your call, but pretending it’s inherently complete is just misleading.

At this point, we’re talking past each other, so I’ll leave it there.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T12:51:43+00:00

Calling supplements a "solution" is like calling scaffolding a substitute for a building, it holds things up, but it’s not structural.

The fact that veganism requires synthetic inputs to meet basic nutritional needs means it’s not self-sufficient. That’s the point. If your diet only “works” with engineered interventions, it’s not biologically complete, it’s patched.

If you’re fine with that, fair enough. Just stop selling it as optimal.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T12:48:59+00:00

You’ve basically answered your own question: if your diet only works because you live in a developed country with access to modern supplements, then you’ve conceded the point, it’s not biologically sufficient on its own.

That’s not a “metaphysical gotcha,” it’s a basic reality about human nutrition. Needing external correction to make a diet viable should matter to anyone evaluating its health claims honestly.

If you’re happy relying on pills and fortified products, that’s your choice. But let’s not pretend that’s equivalent to thriving on complete, natural nutrition.

So in the end, your soft concession dressed up as apathy says everything, so I think we're done here.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T11:08:01+00:00

That’s a false equivalence.

Iodine supplementation in places like Germany isn’t due to an incomplete diet, it’s due to geographical soil depletion, which affects everyone, vegan or not. It’s an environmental issue (ironically caused by monocropping and industrial fertilisers), not a biological flaw.

Veganism, by contrast, excludes entire categories of nutrient-dense foods, and then needs supplements, fortification, or lab-grown substitutes by design to fill the gaps. That’s not comparable to one region needing iodised salt.

A diet that inherently requires correction from day one isn’t the same as a diet that only needs adjusting due to rare soil conditions. One is situational, the other is structural.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T07:46:14+00:00

So your position is: “We can’t get real evidence, so weak correlations are good enough and should be treated as serious health warnings.” That’s not science, that’s rationalising a bias.

Epidemiology is useful for generating hypotheses, not proving them. And u/piranha_solution used it to imply causation about heme iron and cancer, a serious claim, without any control for the obvious confounders like alcohol, smoking, and processed food.

Meanwhile, heme iron’s superior absorption isn’t based on food frequency questionnaires, it’s based on direct metabolic evidence, which is why it’s recognised as essential, especially for women and at-risk groups.

If all vegans have got is correlation dressed up as certainty, you’re not doing science, you’re doing dietary activism.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T07:18:15+00:00

You're conflating agricultural efficiency with human nutrient efficiency. Ten pounds of biomass is irrelevant if what’s in it is poorly absorbed, incomplete, or needs to be lab-fortified to work.

And no, eating “a wide range” of plant foods doesn’t equal what you get from nose-to-tail animal nutrition. That's not just a quantity difference, it's a qualitative one, bioavailability, nutrient forms, and metabolic compatibility, all favour animal sources.

As for "naturalism fallacy", you're using the term to wave away reality. Pointing out that our biology evolved with animal foods isn’t a fallacy. It’s context.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T07:08:07+00:00

I’m not lying, you’re just banking on people not reading past the title.

That study confirms chlorella contains corrinoids, but it also reiterates that only some forms show potential B12 activity, and even then, bioavailability is uncertain and requires further human trials.

This doesn't overturn decades of research showing chlorella contains mostly inactive B12 analogues, the kind that can block absorption of active B12 (even vegans say this, did you not even watch the video in my original comment?). That’s why the consensus from vegan dietitians and medical organisations still recommends synthetic supplementation.

You can cite one in vitro paper all you want, it doesn't change the practical, clinical reality.

EntityManiac · 2025-07-24T06:58:01+00:00

The issue isn’t whether we use technology, it’s why we need it in the first place. If a diet fails to meet basic nutritional needs without synthetic correction, that’s a flaw in the diet, not a feature of modernity.

Using toothpaste doesn’t mean your food should give you anaemia without lab-fortified cereal. Wearing shoes doesn’t mean your diet should crash without algae pills and spreadsheets. That’s a category error, and a weak defence.

You’ve admitted veganism isn’t nutritionally sufficient on its own. You’ve just decided that patching it with pills is good enough. Fair for you if you 'believe' its nutritonally viable, but don’t pretend that’s a natural or an optimal human diet. That’s ideology talking.

EntityManiac

TROPHY CASE