• Preston Maness ☭@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    3 months ago

    READ THE STUDY!

    No need to shout. I did.

    So you’re saying that vegan cats had roughly the same health as non vegan cats

    No. That is not what the study is saying. The study is saying that "we took a look, and couldn't tell if there was a difference or not." Which is understandable, given the methodology. Internet-based questionnaires/surveys are easy to conduct, but tend to have big error bars. It's a common trade-off made when first beginning to investigate a hypothesis.

    It's your typical "absence of evidence" versus "evidence of absence" conundrum. The authors note this in their comments on the limitations of their study and on avenues for further research:

    As we’ve noted previously [30], large-scale cross-sectional or ideally, longitudinal studies of cats maintained on different diets, utilising objective data, such as results of veterinary clinical examinations and laboratory data, as well as veterinary medical histories, should yield results of greater reliability, if sufficient funding could be sourced.

    and we’re not destroying our planet in industrial livestock murder. Sounds great!

    Comrade, I'm not trying to argue that cats are "obligate carnivores," or that cats should or should not have vegan diets. I'm not arguing about whether or not cats can meet their nutritional needs from vegan diets. I am only stating that the particular study linked does not provide any usable evidence in support of a conclusion. That's literally what "no reductions were statistically significant" means: that the collected data is not sufficient to draw reliable conclusions.

    Other studies may very well have more rigorous methodologies that convincingly demonstrate the nutritional completeness of vegan diets for cats. But not this study.

      • Preston Maness ☭@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think if there was something else major in meat that we were missing this study would have shown it.

        That's fair enough. Not all nutrient deficiencies have acute presentations, and the seven indicators of illness may not account for all the ways nutrient deficiencies could present, but if the crowd shrieking about animal cruelty was right in its hyperbolic hypothesis, then it would be likely for at least one of those seven indicators to get tripped.

    • ButtBidet [he/him]
      ·
      3 months ago

      FYI I have no patience for non-vegans concern trolling vegan issues. If you're actively harming sentient animals, your opinion is clouded by your own guilt. Apologies in advance if you happen to be vegan.

      So you’re saying that vegan cats had roughly the same health as non vegan cats
      

      No. That is not what the study is saying. The study is saying that "we took a look, and couldn't tell if there was a difference or not."

      I don't know why you're so concerned about my taking my ending summary, out of context, when I wrote paragraphs summarising the lit review and minor differences in kidney issues with non vegan vs vegan cats.

      couldn't tell if there was a difference or not

      Science doesn't speak in absolutes expect in maths. If you read anything outside of the abstract, you'd see that there's a few other existing studies that support it, no studies claim the opposite, and further research should be done as in all medical research of this type.

      Other studies may very well have more rigorous methodologies

      No kidding. No if only the "cats must eat meat" side had this sorta need for rigorous methodology.