you are either doing it for moral reasons. in that case all these facts are irrelevant. or you can eat red meat for a month and see if you can tell the difference. if you can't there's your answer.

citations are bullshit for this context. Unless you are doing research.

Good grief. I say absolutely nothing about vegetarianism: you're the one who keeps bangin on about about it.

> you are either doing it for moral reasons

Or red meat isn't easily available or cheap in the place where you live? There are many reasons why red meat isn't in your digestive system that are outside "morals". Beef is literally at an all-time high in the US. https://www.macrotrends.net/3141/us-ground-beef-prices

Summary of this thread:

Me: 0.5 g of creatine is small

Other: No it isn't

Me: Citation please?

Other: no

Me: null hypothesis

You: Incorrect interpretation of null hypothesis

Me: Correction

You: "citations are bullshit"

There are many people who feel morally grey about eating meat yet still choose to do so. E.g. there are science-based discussions in plant-based-diet social media; relatively few plant-based diet discussions revolve around morality. Facts matter.

I agree that n=1 experiments are important and often _overrule_ any RCT for an _individual_. If that's your point, I _agree_. But you should say so instead of me trying to infer whatever it is you're arguing...? Is that even what you're saying?

The goalpost shifting is immense. All I wanted was a citation for 0.5g creatine being meaningful, and instead I get "facts are irrelevant", "citations are bullshit", and "morals".

(To be clear: I'm not saying that you're saying "facts are irrelevant"; I'm annoyed that you seem to think that _I'm_ arguing "facts are irrelevant". See this? This is me giving you grace. I would appreciate the same in kind.)

/me throws up arms