So, you are saying that because the original poster said 'possibly', it's not worth an 'anecdotes aren't data', despite me also saying that my stories aren't universally representative. You're providing a textbook case of confirmation bias.
since there aren't any known vitamins, minerals, aminos, etc. that aren't available without eating meat
Diet is considerably more complex than "X number of atoms enter the body through the oral cavity". You're right that it's not worth arguing about, because you're yet another person who says "they just didn't do it right" - something of a No True Scotsman.
> So, you are saying that because the original poster said 'possibly', it's not worth an 'anecdotes aren't data'
What's to argue with about the OP's post? This is genuinely weird. He hates meat an awful lot, doesn't eat it, is doing fine. I didn't comment on it because, you know, who cares?
> Diet is considerably more complex than "X number of atoms enter the body through the oral cavity". You're right that it's not worth arguing about, because you're yet another person who says "they just didn't do it right" - something of a No True Scotsman.
Nobody doubts that a dietary deficiency can cause illness, but a dietary deficiency that can only be addressed by eating meat would be a genuinely strange thing, and you haven't even tried to identify it. This is absolutely not about the women you are interested in, it's about the science of human nutrition.
Firstly, you can drop the white-knighting for the maligned discipline of dietary science. You're not remotely interested in being scientific - your first foray here was flat-out abuse, which is profoundly unscientific.
Secondly, you are saying that because I didn't directly identified the mechanism to begin with, that my experience is useless. You must be fun at parties - should anyone pipe up about the higgs boson, you will abuse them into silence if they don't start out by mentioning the detailed workings.
Finally, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that there was something in meat that isn't in other food. I said that an omnivorous diet was required for these two women to lead a 'well-fed life'. I know less of the details of one of the women, but I've shared a house long-term with the other, the one from the 'foodie' family, and she's very conscious and aware of what she puts in her body and is constantly tweaking her diet to improve things, both when vegetarian and omnivore. The mental overhead for her to stay healthy was much greater as a vegetarian, and it was affecting her quality of life - she could spend a lot of mental effort getting shit together and keeping it tuned (as often as not failing and slipping back to being listless), or she could relax a bit, enjoy a greater variety of interesting foods, and go omnivore. Similarly, the bioavailability of iron in meat is much greater than in vegetables, so it's much easier to plan. She tried iron supplements for a while, but they all tasted like arse. These are quality of life issues, which you're utterly papering over.
Another example of diet going beyond the literal molecules that go in your mouth is cultural availability. Dog meat might be nutritious, but western cultures wouldn't eat it, for example. Hell, if all you're concerned about is getting the right nutrition, you can get food pastes that provide all needs, commercial ones that are similar to the homemade stuff that the guy in the recent article 'this man thinks he never needs to eat again'. Only most people wouldn't go for that, because of quality of life issues. But it is a 'complete diet'!
So, back to my original point: for some people, 'living a well-fed life' is better served by an omnivorous diet. But congratulations, I said that it was tedious when people respond with the same old arguments, and there you were, first with the abuse (how very scientific you are!), then the belief that the whole makeup of a diet is the literal things that go into your mouth and nothing else.
Nonsense. I gave you enough room to backpedal away from what looked like a very silly position (or, more generously, to clarify your position) and, to a limited extent and to a reader who is willing to filter out the goofy bits in the interests of parsimony, you did.
I believe the women about whom, strangely, only enough information is known to support your position (I name this argumentum ad snuffleupagus - see, something productive came out of this thread!) would be proud.
since there aren't any known vitamins, minerals, aminos, etc. that aren't available without eating meat
Diet is considerably more complex than "X number of atoms enter the body through the oral cavity". You're right that it's not worth arguing about, because you're yet another person who says "they just didn't do it right" - something of a No True Scotsman.