Sensitive question-Stronger erections omni v vegan?

...
however, i do believe the saturated fats in animal products clog the heart and penile arteries and lead to dysfunction.
....
I suppose my question here would by why you still believe that when there is no empirical evidence to support the belief.

I'm happy to agree most saturated fats come from animal products, and there is plenty of evidence that saturated fats play a part in the clogging of arteries in some people. I also happily accept that for some people such a narrowing of the arteries may have an effect on erectile function. However, to extrapolate that potential issue and state a direct causal link requires, with current studies and the evidence they provide, a huge and scientifically unsafe leap of faith.

I hasten to add that I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that there is currently no scientific evidence to back up your assertion.
 
This 2020 peer-reviewed study found that a plant-focused diet, with avoidance of red and processed meats, is associated with a lower risk of erectile dysfunction: Association of Diet With Erectile Dysfunction Among Men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study
Close, but not quite.

The study concluded that healthy dietary patterns with a diet focused on plants and fish can be linked with lower risk of erectile disfunction. However the study also stated they had difficulty separating the effect of red meat and dairy from that of obesity, which has a known link with erectile disfunction.

In short, the study said if you want your wedding tackle in tip top condition, eat healthily, not necessarily eat vegan. Given all medical advice involves rebalancing to reduce red meats and processed food, this is to be expected.

The study also said the authors were expecting further high quality randomised tests that might indeed be able to separate the relative effects of dietary components from those of obesity, so we may be able to look forward to some definite evidence soon. However, as of now we don’t yet have the scientific evidence to back up the OP’s original assertion. Nonetheless, the implications in the 2020 study are compelling enough to keep an open mind.
 
I suppose my question here would by why you still believe that when there is no empirical evidence to support the belief.

I'm happy to agree most saturated fats come from animal products, and there is plenty of evidence that saturated fats play a part in the clogging of arteries in some people. I also happily accept that for some people such a narrowing of the arteries may have an effect on erectile function. However, to extrapolate that potential issue and state a direct causal link requires, with current studies and the evidence they provide, a huge and scientifically unsafe leap of faith.

I hasten to add that I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that there is currently no scientific evidence to back up your assertion.
Do you work for animal agriculture?. First of all, you are saying nothing can be true without a medical study proving it!. Yikes. The medical system is incredibly corrupt and based in profit, not health. Chemotherapy, and, the Covid jabs are one massive example and the truth about this will shock humans. Ask knowledgeable alternative Dr's and they know the massive suppression of the validity of natural remedies (like far-infrared heat and others) by the medical system and studies.
Natural remedies are discounted and made invalid in many ways. There are thousands of amazing inventions that are for medical
cures, environmental cleanup, alternative energy that have been hidden and suppressed, such as Medbeds and free energy discoveries
by Nikola Tesla, by pharmaceutical giants, fossil fuel corporations, chemical companies, etcetera. This information will surface in the next
12 months. Prove to me that God and Love exist. I do not need a medical study to prove to me that they are real.
I trust my body to tell me what works and what does not. Try a whole food vegan dietary regimen for 2 months and see for yourself.
Let us acknowledge that the vast majority of researchers are male who consume animal foods. They have a reason not to
research something they enjoy doing, and potentially associate that with e.d. , threatening the animal exploitation corporations.
Many studies validate a direct link between the clogging of the penile arteries, and, heart and cardiovascular problems within
a few years later. It is recommended by knowledgeable heart doctors that those with e.d. need to get a cardiovascular checkup.
No offense, but I feel sad for humans who have to have everything validated by something outside of them. your choice.
However, here are some related studies:
The association between plant-based diet and erectile function in Chinese young healthy men: A population-based study - PubMed strange how this study says eating plants does not have a 'negative" influence
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Brian W
You’ve raised quite a lot of points, @VeganRachel, so I’ll do my best to answer as many as I can.

Do you work for animal agriculture?.
No, I don’t.

First of all, you are saying nothing can be true without a medical study proving it!.
No. Something doesn’t need to be scientifically proven for it to be true. In fact the thing itself doesn’t care whether it’s proven or not; it just goes on being what it is regardless. However, for us to describe it as true, we either require unbiased and well-tested corroboration or we just assume. The evidence can be relied on, the assumption cannot. Evidence-based science is simply the best - perhaps only - way to avoid being fooled by well-worded but erroneous conspiracy theories.

The medical system is incredibly corrupt and based in profit, not health.
In the US, I wouldn’t find that an outlandish belief, but in the UK it’s a bit more nuanced than that. There is certainly corruption and dodgy dealing going on but I wouldn’t be inclined to tar the whole system with that same brush. That, however, is a separate discussion.

What you’re suggesting is that the evidence I’m asking for is all provided by the medical companies. Whilst they provide some research, there are plenty of other scientists contributing too. That is why any scientist or person applying rational logic to their data gathering will look for conflicts of interest in the authorship as well as the findings stated. That allows us to treat with caution a report saying tobacco doesn’t cause cancer if its underlying research was funded by a tobacco company.

Chemotherapy, and, the Covid jabs are one massive example and the truth about this will shock humans. Ask knowledgeable alternative Dr's and they know the massive suppression of the validity of natural remedies (like far-infrared heat and others) by the medical system and studies. Natural remedies are discounted and made invalid in many ways. There are thousands of amazing inventions that are for medical cures, environmental cleanup, alternative energy that have been hidden and suppressed, such as Medbeds and free energy discoveries by Nikola Tesla, by pharmaceutical giants, fossil fuel corporations, chemical companies, etcetera. This information will surface in the next
12 months.
As before, provide evidence. If I ask a knowledgeable doctor - alternative or not - they already know their opinion is only validated because they can point to the evidence on which they base their conclusions. If I say, “show me the evidence”, they will. And you and I as lay people can read that evidence and pass it on.

Prove to me that God and Love exist. I do not need a medical study to prove to me that they are real.
That misses the point. There is plenty of empirical evidence to show love exists, but if one could prove God does or doesn’t exist there would be no need for faith, and the value of religious belief is precisely because it is faith.

I trust my body to tell me what works and what does not.
Dangerous and of limited wider use. There are plenty of situations where dealing with symptoms improves apparent wellbeing whilst actually doing greater damage, and any suggestion that what works for one individual can automatically be applied to everyone else is patently unsafe (once again, without corroborative evidence).

I don’t for a moment suggest a vegan diet is bad; quite the opposite. However I know this because of the scientific proof, not someone listening to their body.

Let us acknowledge that the vast majority of researchers are male who consume animal foods.
Evidence?

Many studies validate a direct link between the clogging of the penile arteries, and, heart and cardiovascular problems within a few years later. It is recommended by knowledgeable heart doctors that those with e.d. need to get a cardiovascular checkup.
Quite right, but the thread is extrapolating that to suggest a link between a vegan diet and better erections. That link may exist, but so far has not been proven. The best we can say is that there are good grounds for further research.
No offense, but I feel sad for humans who have to have everything validated by something outside of them.
No offence taken, but I find myself concerned that some people jump to a conclusion first and then only accept evidence that backs them up. I try to be unbiased and accept conclusions even when they are unpalatable to me. That means I can have greater confidence in my beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian W and KLS52
Do you work for animal agriculture?. First of all, you are saying nothing can be true without a medical study proving it!. Yikes. The medical system is incredibly corrupt and based in profit, not health. Chemotherapy, and, the Covid jabs are one massive example and the truth about this will shock humans. Ask knowledgeable alternative Dr's and they know the massive suppression of the validity of natural remedies (like far-infrared heat and others) by the medical system and studies.
Natural remedies are discounted and made invalid in many ways. There are thousands of amazing inventions that are for medical
cures, environmental cleanup, alternative energy that have been hidden and suppressed, such as Medbeds and free energy discoveries
by Nikola Tesla, by pharmaceutical giants, fossil fuel corporations, chemical companies, etcetera. This information will surface in the next
12 months. Prove to me that God and Love exist. I do not need a medical study to prove to me that they are real.
I trust my body to tell me what works and what does not. Try a whole food vegan dietary regimen for 2 months and see for yourself.
Let us acknowledge that the vast majority of researchers are male who consume animal foods. They have a reason not to
research something they enjoy doing, and potentially associate that with e.d. , threatening the animal exploitation corporations.
Many studies validate a direct link between the clogging of the penile arteries, and, heart and cardiovascular problems within
a few years later. It is recommended by knowledgeable heart doctors that those with e.d. need to get a cardiovascular checkup.
No offense, but I feel sad for humans who have to have everything validated by something outside of them. your choice.
However, here are some related studies:
The association between plant-based diet and erectile function in Chinese young healthy men: A population-based study - PubMed strange how this study says eating plants does not have a 'negative" influence

Quotes from your own links:

Conclusions: More plant-based diet intake was associated with a reduced presence of ED and less severe ED in China. Committing to plant-based diet can be encouraged for many health benefits and to lower ED burden. Further well-designed studies are warranted to validate our findings.

Conclusion:
In a well characterized national database, we showed that a healthful plant-based diet is associated with less chance of having erectile dysfunction. Whether interventions with a plant-based diet will improve erectile function remains to be studied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
I think its a myth, vegans can be overweight and out of shape too.
I am an obese vegan myself. I wonder if women have a harder time orgasming if they're overweight.
 
Last edited:
I think its a myth, vegans can be overweight and out of shape too.
I am an obese vegan myself. I wonder if women have a harder time orgasming if they're overweight.
No issues that I have seen with weight vs orgasm. Just the person it seems.

Also I’ve never noticed a difference in smell based on someone’s diet. It just seems like the person in general, their body chemistry.

And myself, I’ve never noticed a difference in erection now that I’m mostly plant based, to when I wasn’t. Been called the energizer bunny either way lol. Always been severely anemic, low blood pressure, had 3 DVTs, doesn’t seem to matter. Maybe it’s just the person. I do have low cholesterol too, that probably helps. The main difference is being plant based helps me feel better overall, bowels not severely irregular anymore, much less cramps and nausea and stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danielle
You’ve raised quite a lot of points, @VeganRachel, so I’ll do my best to answer as many as I can.


No, I don’t.


No. Something doesn’t need to be scientifically proven for it to be true. In fact the thing itself doesn’t care whether it’s proven or not; it just goes on being what it is regardless. However, for us to describe it as true, we either require unbiased and well-tested corroboration or we just assume. The evidence can be relied on, the assumption cannot. Evidence-based science is simply the best - perhaps only - way to avoid being fooled by well-worded but erroneous conspiracy theories.


In the US, I wouldn’t find that an outlandish belief, but in the UK it’s a bit more nuanced than that. There is certainly corruption and dodgy dealing going on but I wouldn’t be inclined to tar the whole system with that same brush. That, however, is a separate discussion.

What you’re suggesting is that the evidence I’m asking for is all provided by the medical companies. Whilst they provide some research, there are plenty of other scientists contributing too. That is why any scientist or person applying rational logic to their data gathering will look for conflicts of interest in the authorship as well as the findings stated. That allows us to treat with caution a report saying tobacco doesn’t cause cancer if its underlying research was funded by a tobacco company.


As before, provide evidence. If I ask a knowledgeable doctor - alternative or not - they already know their opinion is only validated because they can point to the evidence on which they base their conclusions. If I say, “show me the evidence”, they will. And you and I as lay people can read that evidence and pass it on.


That misses the point. There is plenty of empirical evidence to show love exists, but if one could prove God does or doesn’t exist there would be no need for faith, and the value of religious belief is precisely because it is faith.


Dangerous and of limited wider use. There are plenty of situations where dealing with symptoms improves apparent wellbeing whilst actually doing greater damage, and any suggestion that what works for one individual can automatically be applied to everyone else is patently unsafe (once again, without corroborative evidence).

I don’t for a moment suggest a vegan diet is bad; quite the opposite. However I know this because of the scientific proof, not someone listening to their body.


Evidence?


Quite right, but the thread is extrapolating that to suggest a link between a vegan diet and better erections. That link may exist, but so far has not been proven. The best we can say is that there are good grounds for further research.

No offence taken, but I find myself concerned that some people jump to a conclusion first and then only accept evidence that backs them up. I try to be unbiased and accept conclusions even when they are unpalatable to me. That means I can have greater confidence in my beliefs.
I mentioned animal agriculture because there are many anti-vegan paid trolls on vegan sites, social media, and other avenues.
The documentary "The game changers (2019) has a scene with three strong male athletes and their night
erections based on two different diets eaten. Plant-based was superior. You can watch that scene but it is not a printed medical study.
You can contact Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and ask him directly about his knowledege with his male patients experiencing an
ability to function sexually after changing to a whole food vegan diet. The fact that taking away the '"cause" of their e.d,,
reverses it, reveals the cause is not products of plant origin. More oxygen, better blood flow, and voila!.
Saturated fats and hydrogenated fats are known to clog the human arteries. E.D. is a known canary in the coal mine for
heart disease a few years later. More and more males every year experience E.D. and at younger and younger ages;
this has to originate from somewhere, its' not simply psychological,
The problem with requiring a study proving the details of everything is like only believing something if it is written in the bible,
There is a massive corporate animal ag industry that profits from males believing that consuming flesh and blood makes one
a man, virile, strong, powerful, superior, and full of sexual vigor. They have a vested interest in making sure there are no studies
showing a rise in male potency by eliminating animal flesh from their diets. And yes, there is no study proving this statement.
Once again I suggest using your own body as a
test dummy. Try a whole food vegan diet for 30 days and see if you notice improvements. This seems really sensible. cheers.
 
I mentioned animal agriculture because there are many anti-vegan paid trolls on vegan sites, social media, and other avenues.
If ever there was a demonstration that one should look for evidence before making an assumption, I'd suggest this is it. Can you point to ANY comment I've made in ANY of my postings that suggests I am anti-vegan? I would also ask the moderators to please also do the same and, if any such comment is found, to remove my account.

I, like @beancounter, thought you were assuming me working in animal agriculture based on a feeling I might have a vested interest. I did not imagine you suspected me of being a troll. Now, I'm afraid, it's my turn to use @beancounter's comment; if you have to accuse someone of being a troll simply because they disagree with you, your argument is weak.

The documentary "The game changers (2019) has a scene with three strong male athletes and their night erections based on two different diets eaten. Plant-based was superior. You can watch that scene but it is not a printed medical study.
A film is, by its very nature, an attempt to put across a particular message. It's intended to make people think, not act as a point of reference. If you want to point me towards something scientifically reliable, try some printed medical studies referred to in the film (Lösch S, Moghaddam N, Grossschmidt K, Risser DU, Kanz F. Stable isotope and trace element studies on gladiators and contemporary Romans from Ephesus (Turkey, 2nd and 3rd Ct. AD) — Implications for differences in diet. and Longo UG, Spiezia F, Maffulli N, Denaro V. The Best Athletes in Ancient Rome were Vegetarian).

You can contact Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and ask him directly about his knowledege with his male patients experiencing an ability to function sexually after changing to a whole food vegan diet. The fact that taking away the '"cause" of their e.d reverses it reveals the cause is not products of plant origin. More oxygen, better blood flow, and voila!.
Or, like me, you could admit (as I have stated several times before) that the implications are compelling enough to carry out further research and to wait for his next published and peer-reviewed report based on properly conducted and scientifically reliable tests. Pointing at an observed effect and suggesting it also proves the opposite is dodgy reasoning to say the least, hence the need to follow up the observation with a valid test. Time and again you are making leaps of faith and stating them as plain fact without evidence to back it up. Many of these leaps of faith are likely to turn out to be true in the fullness of time, but some won't. We can't sort out which are which until someone with reliable scientific process actually does some testing.

...
The problem with requiring a study proving the details of everything is like only believing something if it is written in the bible.
Not in the slightest. The assertions in the bible cannot be evidenced. Only believing something if it is written in the bible is like only believing something that has been mentioned in The Game Changers (2019).

The problem with requiring a study proving the details of everything is that it takes time. However, having taken that time, it provides a stable foundation of knowledge on which to build further studies and therefore advance the sum of human knowledge. If you can't provide evidence to support your statements, you can't demonstrate others are wrong in disagreeing and you will find yourself arguing ad infinitum without ever having any prospect of swaying either your or the other viewpoint.

There is a massive corporate animal ag industry that profits from males believing that consuming flesh and blood makes one a man, virile, strong, powerful, superior, and full of sexual vigor. They have a vested interest in making sure there are no studies showing a rise in male potency by eliminating animal flesh from their diets. And yes, there is no study proving this statement.
Quite agree. There is also a huge industry based on health foods with a vested interest in making all kinds of unfounded health claims. Ditto the cosmetics industry. Vested interests are nothing new, and making implications based on little or no evidence is called marketing.

The best weapon against marketing is to take the scientific approach you seem to dislike. If a company suggests or implies that eating meat makes a man manly, look for evidence. If there is none, discount the message. If the company doesn't suggest or imply it but instead claims it, ask them for evidence and if they can't provide it then report them to whichever advertising standards authority has jurisdiction. See? Requiring evidence is useful sometimes.

...
Once again I suggest using your own body as a test dummy. Try a whole food vegan diet for 30 days and see if you notice improvements. This seems really sensible. cheers.
Yes, you've made that suggestion several times. In fact, it suggests you're assuming I haven't. And yet you haven't asked.

Oh, and before you do so, I won't be providing an answer; I have no intention of becoming part of a wider study. Any understanding I have about me and my body is necessarily wrapped up in a wider very personal context and so will remain private. Nonetheless, you really shouldn't assume.
 
Again, the term is whole food plantbased diet, not vegan diet.
No need to add vegan to this as it is not a requirement.
 
If ever there was a demonstration that one should look for evidence before making an assumption, I'd suggest this is it. Can you point to ANY comment I've made in ANY of my postings that suggests I am anti-vegan? I would also ask the moderators to please also do the same and, if any such comment is found, to remove my account.

I, like @beancounter, thought you were assuming me working in animal agriculture based on a feeling I might have a vested interest. I did not imagine you suspected me of being a troll. Now, I'm afraid, it's my turn to use @beancounter's comment; if you have to accuse someone of being a troll simply because they disagree with you, your argument is weak.


A film is, by its very nature, an attempt to put across a particular message. It's intended to make people think, not act as a point of reference. If you want to point me towards something scientifically reliable, try some printed medical studies referred to in the film (Lösch S, Moghaddam N, Grossschmidt K, Risser DU, Kanz F. Stable isotope and trace element studies on gladiators and contemporary Romans from Ephesus (Turkey, 2nd and 3rd Ct. AD) — Implications for differences in diet. and Longo UG, Spiezia F, Maffulli N, Denaro V. The Best Athletes in Ancient Rome were Vegetarian).


Or, like me, you could admit (as I have stated several times before) that the implications are compelling enough to carry out further research and to wait for his next published and peer-reviewed report based on properly conducted and scientifically reliable tests. Pointing at an observed effect and suggesting it also proves the opposite is dodgy reasoning to say the least, hence the need to follow up the observation with a valid test. Time and again you are making leaps of faith and stating them as plain fact without evidence to back it up. Many of these leaps of faith are likely to turn out to be true in the fullness of time, but some won't. We can't sort out which are which until someone with reliable scientific process actually does some testing.


Not in the slightest. The assertions in the bible cannot be evidenced. Only believing something if it is written in the bible is like only believing something that has been mentioned in The Game Changers (2019).

The problem with requiring a study proving the details of everything is that it takes time. However, having taken that time, it provides a stable foundation of knowledge on which to build further studies and therefore advance the sum of human knowledge. If you can't provide evidence to support your statements, you can't demonstrate others are wrong in disagreeing and you will find yourself arguing ad infinitum without ever having any prospect of swaying either your or the other viewpoint.


Quite agree. There is also a huge industry based on health foods with a vested interest in making all kinds of unfounded health claims. Ditto the cosmetics industry. Vested interests are nothing new, and making implications based on little or no evidence is called marketing.

The best weapon against marketing is to take the scientific approach you seem to dislike. If a company suggests or implies that eating meat makes a man manly, look for evidence. If there is none, discount the message. If the company doesn't suggest or imply it but instead claims it, ask them for evidence and if they can't provide it then report them to whichever advertising standards authority has jurisdiction. See? Requiring evidence is useful sometimes.


Yes, you've made that suggestion several times. In fact, it suggests you're assuming I haven't. And yet you haven't asked.

Oh, and before you do so, I won't be providing an answer; I have no intention of becoming part of a wider study. Any understanding I have about me and my body is necessarily wrapped up in a wider very personal context and so will remain private. Nonetheless, you really shouldn't assume.
There are many animal ag trolls on many sites. There have been trolls on this site and likely still are, as the corporate
profiteers, who care not for the endless animal suffering (except when it comes to $$$) want to know what is going on.
I never "accused" you of being a troll, I simply asked if you did work for animal ag to clarify that fact. Some who work for
animal ag do not eat animals as they know the nasty hidden facts about their products. I do not work for animal ag by the way.
I never stated you were anti-vegan either. I simply believe you are curious and like to confront vegans with
the requirement of providing scientific studies to prove that something is true. If thats' your need to prove things,
than thats' what you will require. Only then do you believe. Other humans may need the same proofs.

Whether or not all vegan males have better erections, veganism is beneficial in multiple ways, including for better body odor.
If some do not care if they smell better, they will make their own choices.

However, from my point of view what gets ignored and left out of cold hard linear "proof' is the
multiple consequences of animal agriculture on the waste of resources to produce them, the pollution in the
environment, the effects on human health, but most importantly, the inhumane slaughter of over 70 billion animals
every year. This is not a linear scientific issue but an ethical and moral one. There are studies that show that vegans
in general are more compassionate and empathetic, and, some show that eating flesh and blood makes those humans who do so,
less compassionate. Pythagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher and teacher spoke about and wrote about the behavior of meat
eaters versus vegetarians. He knew the vegetarians were peaceful and the others, prone to anger and violence. Many vegetarian
scholars also wrote and talked about this fact. We are what we eat has much more meaning.
When sentient animals are relegated to mere objects, products, numbers, and food--and studies
are needed to prove certain things--the animal lives are ignored and dismissed. In addition, working in a slaughterhouse
is a horrible dangerous job. Yet those who eat animals are also allowing those workers to suffer both mentally and physically.
Your statements are asking for science, yet what I feel is real emotion and compassion. I do not need scientific studies,
I go with my heart. I put myself in the place of the innocent victims who cannot speak for themselves. Science is a very linear
way to look at life. If everyone wanting to eat flesh and blood had to physically murder the animal themselves, over 90% of the worlds'
human animals would be vegan or at least vegetarian. God and love exist even without proof in scientific studies. cheers.
 
I have noticed no difference, nor has anyone else who could have noticed. I've been carnivore, omnivore, vegan, vegetarian and back again and I've never noticed a difference in that particular topic.

I overall tend to feel better on a vegan diet, though, if I stick with it long enough. Especially if I exercise.
Okay thanks. Just curious, Why have you gone from one "diet" to another?. What were you trying to achieve?
what were you needing to find or feel?.
 
No. I also have not really noticed any significant difference overall. Except errr... bathroom habits after eating lots of beans/lentils. That said, I do not personally believe that a vegan diet is the healthiest diet, and I worried about how a vegan diet would affect me. Sure, I did the research and believed the arguments that we should get enough nutrition from a plants only diet. I checked with Chronometer and did frequent bloods. Overall, my health now after almost 10 years is worse than before. But equally, I am 10 years older at the wrong end of life so it might just be bad luck. My wife's health has also deteriorated. Perhaps it is just aging. I remain suspicious...
I do not know what to say except not everything we eat is absorbed, and if you were exposed to heavy metals, toxins,
that can also affect your health. Being dehydrated makes a difference as well, and drinking distilled and r/o water can lead
to dehydration. I drink 1/2 ounce water for every pound of body weight daily. If you are under a lot of stress that is not healthy,
nor is having an acidic, versus alkaline, pH. Years ago I have gone to qualified fasting clinics as a health tool. cheers...
 
No change. The only time anyone really could tell a measurable difference is if they had high cholesterol and heart blockage, and then later turned vegan.

In other words, there is no meaningful difference between a healthy vegans erection and a healthy carnivore's erection.

But it sounds like a great selling point. " Go vegan and have amazing erections. Vegan women standing by to test it out":cool:
Thank you, however I would rather take my chances with a guy who smelled better not eating corpses...
 
I just thought of something--I haven't known any male vegans for some time, but thinking back,they did not smell attractive at all, in fact the two that stick in my mind were stinky. That's as far as I knew them. Just anecdotal.
 
Okay thanks. Just curious, Why have you gone from one "diet" to another?. What were you trying to achieve?
what were you needing to find or feel?.
The changes arose mostly from circumstance. I was raised on meat, meat, meat. Then early in life a group of friends introduced me to vegetarianism, so I tried that for various reasons. A few years after, lactose intolerance, and a nasty health scare, turned me into an ovo vegan. Then I found myself turning back to meat, but not nearly at the previous levels, which then lasted for a few years. Then I bounced around between ovo vegan and vegan for a number of years, trying mostly to reduce meat intake. Throughout all of these changes, my overall meat intake has reduced to nearly zero, with only very few infractions, mostly for family holiday meals or the very rare "trapped" circumstance where I don't think "standing firm" would serve me well. That's why I registered as "flexitarian," though 99.9% of my days I never eat a molecule of meat. But I will succumb if I need to.
 
There are many animal ag trolls on many sites. There have been trolls on this site and likely still are, as the corporate
profiteers, who care not for the endless animal suffering (except when it comes to $$$) want to know what is going on.
I never "accused" you of being a troll, I simply asked if you did work for animal ag to clarify that fact.
I understand, but please bear in mind how it comes across asking someone as a matter of course if they are a troll. It's certainly not polite to ask someone "are you a thief" without pretty good grounds, and this is a directly comparable scenario.

...
I never stated you were anti-vegan either. I simply believe you are curious and like to confront vegans with the requirement of providing scientific studies to prove that something is true. If thats' your need to prove things than thats' what you will require. Only then do you believe. Other humans may need the same proofs.
It might seem like a minor point, but actually I don't like confrontation at all, and certainly not with selective groups. However, I do try to encourage debate and when anyone - not just a vegan - makes a claim as fact, I am prepared to challenge it. If they cannot back up the claim, I dismiss that claim. If they can back it up, I accept it as a demonstrated fact.

Of course, debates centre around facts and opinion. One is provable and absolute, one is subjective and relies on concensus. I'm well aware of that and challenge accordingly. You claimed a factual link between diet and erectile performance, I challenged that and the evidence falls short of proven fact. If you had claimed it as an opinion and pointed towards two closely linked bodies of evidence (diet vs arterial narrowing and arterial narrowing vs erectile performance), I would have accepted it as a legitimate and valid hypothesis with a high probability of being true. In fact, that is the point the scientific community is at right now.

If you make a claim, expect it to be challenged. If you state an opinion, expect to be able to back it up but be aware the evidential bar is lower.

...
Whether or not all vegan males have better erections, veganism is beneficial in multiple ways, including for better body odor. If some do not care if they smell better, they will make their own choices.
Yes, veganism is beneficial in many ways. However, stating body odour is one of them is once again no more than opinion. It will change someone's body odour, but whether that is "better" or "worse" will depend on the preferences of the people around them. If we as a species can't agree on whether coriander or garlic are pleasant tastes or not, how can we expect to get universal agreement on a person's scent? Understandably, a lack of washing is pretty commonly recognised, but that's not what we're on about here.

...
However, from my point of view what gets ignored and left out of cold hard linear "proof' is the multiple consequences of animal agriculture on the waste of resources to produce them.... This is not a linear scientific issue but an ethical and moral one.
Linking back with my earlier point, ethics and morality are not fact; they are opinion. For something to be held as morally right it is only necessary for the majority of society to agree. Even with a significant minority agreeing, that's grounds enough for robust debate. My requirement for facts to be backed up by evidence doesn't in any way ignore the moral and ethical aspects of an argument and I strongly encourage such aspects to be included.

...
There are studies that show that vegans in general are more compassionate and empathetic, and, some show that eating flesh and blood makes those humans who do so less compassionate. Pythagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher and teacher spoke about and wrote about the behavior of meat eaters versus vegetarians. He knew the vegetarians were peaceful and the others, prone to anger and violence. Many vegetarian scholars also wrote and talked about this fact.
You know I'm going to challenge this too, especially when arguably the most comprehensively violent and compassionless historical figure ever was largely vegetarian. If there are studies, please provide at least one scientifically reliable example.

What I strongly suspect, but without corroboration, is that many compassionate humans adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet on compassionate grounds, hence a link between diet and compassion. If that's correct, you have your cause and effect round the wrong way.

...
Your statements are asking for science, yet what I feel is real emotion and compassion. I do not need scientific studies, I go with my heart. I put myself in the place of the innocent victims who cannot speak for themselves.
Of everything you have written, this perhaps gets to the heart of it all. I do not doubt for one moment your emotion, your compassion or (implied) your passion. They are very real strengths and I wouldn't want you to lose any of them. I only disagree with the way you are channelling them.

The suggestion that eating meat is going to somehow emasculate an omnivorous man is clearly a strong piece of ammunition - if it's true. However, if it's challenged and found to be unproven, that man can legitimately discount it. It doesn't matter if it's "probably" true or "might be" true; it'll be discarded out of hand along with all the other "facts" claimed to be true at the same time. That means you have wasted your ammunition.

If, on the other hand, you only claim as fact what can be backed up, the same omnivorous man has no alternative but to either accept or ignore - the former is a win for you, the latter is a fool's way out for him. Either way, your ammunition is not wasted.

You claimed earlier that I am curious. You are right. I have also not come on this forum to argue for or against veganism or any of its related values, but rather to listen to solid argument and to learn. I urge you to throttle back on the unproven claims (or at least include provisos when you do so) because your moral and ethical arguments are not only valid but strong.