Forgive me if I don't quite find your source credible, since it appears to have been written by a volunteer, and since it doesn't actually give concrete evidence on maximum recommended dose.

nutritionfacts.org is vegan propaganda and shouldn't be confused with a good source.

Nutritional science is hard and we have very limited ability to actually study it and make strong recommendations. Cherry-picking phrases and results from limited power studies just muddies the waters.

Here's the founder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger

> In his lectures, videos, and writings about nutrition he tries to persuade people to change their eating habits from a Western pattern diet to a whole foods, plant-based, healthy diet—optimally to vegan diet—and says that such a diet can prevent and reverse many chronic diseases.

> Retired physician Harriet A. Hall ... has written that ... Greger often overstates the known benefits of such a diet as well as the harm caused by eating animal products (for example, in a talk he claimed that a single meal rich in animal products can "cripple" one's arteries), and he sometimes does not discuss evidence that contradicts his strong claims.

"Disastrous" is clearly a gross overstatement.

> Would love to see a better source.

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/

> - Nutritionfacts.org is non-profit - Their conclusions are based on studies. - They're not trying to sell supplements or food products.

IMO: Your website is trying to sell a lifestyle. Their conclusions are made in advance; then they attempt to rationalize them with studies after the fact.

> Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.

That is a major red flag in science reporting.

>Do they omit certain studies that contradict their overall conclusions? Sure. That doesn't mean anything to me.

Cherry-picking doesn't mean anything to you?

The source is just screenshots of academic studies.

Yes, and I took at look at them. Some of the studies (especially the blood cookies or whatever ones) actually mentioned that heme iron actually helped anemic children. Many of the others could not come to a conclusion.

Well, in that case, heme iron may not be so bad. I'm not here to debate that. But the source has ground -- until someone gives me a better source.

You first posted

> Impossible Burgers contain heme iron, which is disastrous to the body.

Then posted

> Well, in that case, heme iron may not be so bad. I'm not here to debate that.

Are you revoking your initial claim?

Edited and cherry picked screenshots. He deliberately erased the context of one of the first screenshots in the video.

An unbiased explanation of the differences: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/

I really can't be bothered watching the video but I had a look at the first article it "quotes" (https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/196_10_040612_sup...). The video says:

"no more likely to suffer from iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians"

But has actually deliberately erased the context (it uses the same PDF, the rest has been whited out in the screenshot):

"[In Western countries like Australia, where we enjoy a varied food supply,] vegetarians are no more likely to suffer from iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians."

And shamelessly cherry picked:

"but a number of studies suggest that vegetarians are at greater risk of having low iron stores (as reflected by serum ferritin)."

So I'm going to suggest that people not pay this video much mind.

Am I right in thinking that all forms of meat contain heme iron? And in what dosage is this "disastrous" to the body?

Maybe "disastrous" is the wrong word.

"An increase in heme iron intake of 1mg/day appeared to be significantly associated with a 27% increase in risk of CHD" according to one study.

What meat doesn't contain heme iron?

And no links to studies?