I'm vegan and I made the decision for moral reasons. Being vegan isn't easy or cheap, I think if you want to live healthier just find a healthy diet. If you want to make a difference in the world by avoiding billions of animals dying in animal factory farms, then become a vegan.

As for going vegetarian, you'll just have to give up meat, that's probably an much easier option.

But in the end both are more about morally changing your diet, and not necessarily to live healthier but I for one try to.

I should clarify what I meant.  *Calling* it "paleo" is pseudo-science.  The archeological evidence is that modern paleo diet recommendations do not line up with how people ate in paleo times.  Also, the idea that the paleolithic period is the key one in our evolution is also pseudo-science, there is no scientific basis for the suggestion that the parts of our evolution before the paleolithic period, or the parts of our evolution after the paleolithic period, are somehow less important.  90% of humanity's evolution occurred before paleo times, and we've continued well after the paleolithic.  The idea that we ate something like the paleo diet in paleo times is wrong, and the idea that other periods are less important to our evolution is wrong, and that's what I was referring to when I said it's pseudo-science.

Paleo people also argue that we began cooking vegetables very recently in our evolution, despite strong archeological evidence to the contrary.  They also argue that we should be concerned with eating grains because we haven't been eating grains for a long time, and the archeological evidence also speaks against that.  Paleo thinking recommends against many starches and grains, despite whole grains (and starchy vegetables like sweet potatoes) being wildly nutritious, and despite them being eating in huge quantities in paleo times.  Further, paleo doctrine says we shouldn't eat phytates because it's an anti-nutrient in large quantities.  When you put it to the test, though, the societies who traditionally ate the most starches and grains were the longest-living and the most vibrant in old age (such as the famed Okinawa diet, that was 69% sweet potato, and 98% plant-based).  Paleo thinking is based on theory, but when you put that theory to the test it often falls apart.  For example, avoiding phytates is a mistake because phytates have many health benefits.  The concern with phytates is that they inhibit iron absorption, but the foods that contain phytates often also contain large amounts of iron which means that even with some malabsorption you still typically get more than enough.  Paleo theory also fails to consider that animal protein becomes an anti-nutrient when present in large quantities, as it stresses the kidneys.  Most people can't absorb more than about 75 grams of protein a day, and a typical paleo diet has far more than that.  Too much animal protein ties up the kidneys as they try and fail to absorb the excess protein, while other nutrients that the kidneys could have helped absorb swim on by and get excreted from the body.  Curiously, plant protein doesn't seem to have this same effect on the kidneys.

I acknowledged in my previous post to you that studies have shown that the number one thing that people report eating more of when they go paleo is salad, so I am well aware that paleo is about more than eating meat.  :)

So I see paleo thinking as a well meaning and theory, but one that tends to fall apart in practice.  This is not uncommon in nutrition research.  For decades they encouraged cancer patients to avoid soy products because of their phyto-estrogens.  Oddly, they didn't recommend people avoid dairy despite dairy containing ACTUAL estrogen.  :)  However, when they put it to the test, they found that people's recovery from cancer was improved when they ate large amounts of soy products.  So the theory didn't hold up in practice.  You always have to put it to the test.  We find the same thing with paleo theory and how their aversion to phytate-rich foods doesn't hold up when you actually put it to the test, as one example out of several that I could cite.

Anything is better than eating processed foods, so being paleo is better than nothing, but ironically being vegan is closer to truly being paleo since most paleolithic peoples were about 98% plant-based.

I'm curious why being healthier isn't a reason to go vegan?  The preponderence of evidence, by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, shows that a whole-food, plant-based diet is the most healthy diet available.  And the studies that suggest otherwise tend to be funded by vested interests (food corporations, dairy marketing boards, egg interests, etc.), whereas the studies concluding that plant-based diets are the most natural and the most healthy tend to be funded by charities, educational institutions, health agencies, and other groups that don't have as much riding on the results, which strengthens the argument of the plant-based side likely being the least biased one in this case.  Sounds "worth it" to me.

No need to go full vegan, but huge benefits to doing so if health is your goal.  One study found that people who ate small amounts of animal protein had a 23 times increase in dying from diabetes than vegans, and those who ate a lot of animal protein had a 73-fold increase in the likelihood of dying of diabetes over plant-based groups.  SOURCE:  http://nutritionfacts.org/video/increasing-protein-intake-age-65/  And that's just looking at one risk factor.  You see the same thing when you look at many cancers, at heart disease, and at many neurological disorders.  Over the last several years, the science has become far more clear, despite the occasional daytime talk show to the contrary.

Being vegan may or may not be easy depending on a variety of factors, including your support system.  Going vegan at the same time as a loved one, so that you create a support system for each other, makes it far easier.  Doing it yourself, or doing it despite a lack of approval from your social group, that would probably be hard.  My experience has been that being vegan is easier than being an omnivore, in part because my actions are in better alignment with my beliefs, and in part because of the stunning health and metabolism benefits.

However, you're wrong about it not being cheap.  It's as cheap, or as expensive, as you want it to be.  You can eat a whole food, plant-based diet, and cover all your essential nutrients, far cheaper than you can omnivorously.  If you are a "junk food vegan" who eats a lot of tofurky (or other processed vegans foods) then it can be expensive, but that doesn't make veganism inherently expensive.  I spend *way* less on a whole food, plant-based diet than I ever did as a pescetarian or as an omnivore, despite eating more food and getting a greater quantity and variety of nutrients in my diet.  I went vegan because of the environmental concerns (animal agriculture is destroying our environment faster than any other factor, by several measures), but I stay plant-based because of the overwhelming health benefits.

Many people say they feel like they "have more energy" on this diet, or on that diet.  But we actually have an objective measure of energy in the body, and it's called metabolism.  Every study I've ever seen on the subject suggests that the more plant-based you are, the higher your metabolism goes (typically 10-15% higher despite making no other change to your lifestyle).  It makes sense too, as you tend to eat more starches, and more food in total, on a plant-based diet.

Everytime a Vegan tries to push their ideology on me... I eat two steaks instead of one that night... Because screw them. - They have no right to tell me what to do.

With that said... If you live in the Arctic regions you will eat nothing but meat, no plants can grow there... And those people live long, happy and healthy lives.
The human body is rather extroadanary at how it adapts itself to certain diets... For instance one bloke would eat a dozen eggs a day for decades, normally that should result in high cholesterol, but it didn't, his body adjusted.

Just eat it in moderation and you will be fine, there are a few nutrients only found in meat and a few nutrients are found in high concentrations.

Plus it tastes amazing.

Getting healthy isn't just about eating well but also living well. Whether you are a a vegan, vegetarian or a meat eater, you need to exercise. I know fat vegetarians, especially people from India. Their cooking has a lot of oil, butter and sugar.

One thing a lot of people forget is that our ancestors used to do a lot more physical work and walk a lot more. Even if they were vegetarian / vegan, they would walk long distances.

If you can manage an all veg diet, that's great, but if you can't, then it's important to control your consumption and to exercise.

All vegetarians look pale and weak, but they all claim to feel great. Go figure.

Because, if your heart is not in it, why bother.
If you don't have any "real" motivation you are just playing a game with your diet.

Man if you say no to all to those above you don't seem to me the regular western citizen, that is very good in my opinion.

However I guess you still use computers/cellphones to post in this forum and you have some kind of modern sedentary habbits (and non-natural). Or use public transportation. Or live in a city and get to breath polluted air.  Or eat cooked food.
No to that also?

Congratulations then.

However, my point was that:
1. being "natural" is just a very relative concept depending on the context. One can even say that what if we do use cars, is probably because was the natural step to take for us humans. Once we do something, it becomes natural. I think however people speak of "natural" more on par with our cave man "primitive" and "animalistic" food instincts when talking about eating meat or vegan. Well in natural environments a lot of animals have sex with their family and eat uncooked food. 
2. being "natural" per se is not an argument to select a diet as equal to being "healthier", "sustaninable", "ethical", etc. Being "primitive natural" we wouldn't take medicine. Of course medicine also has a bad side. But has a good side also.
3. I think we should worry with what we eat because of health, ethics, sustainabily and money. And because of "being natural"? What I'm disputing here an argument usually used to justify eating meat or vegan because of just the sake "being natural". What does that matter? We don't live on the forest. 

Do you think that a lot of people worried about vegan being natural will dispense fast food?


Cheers

I agree that it's counter productive to attempt to push your ideology on someone.  Just understand that most omnivores do it too, whether they realize it or not.  Look at the person who responded to this thread with nothing more than a picture of a steak for example.  Also consider that the overwhelming majority of public health care dollars are caused by diet and lifestyle choices, so those people with poor life choices are forcing the effects of their ideology on others in a different way.

As for the rest of your points, most of them are decidedly incorrect.  Aboriginal arctic peoples had much shorter lives than those who lived even only a little bit further south.  Analysis of mummified inuit peoples from the artic show that they were suffering atherosclerosis (the first stage of heart disease) or worse.  Source:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N7Sk1ZRohU  Other studies have shown that remains from wealthy and powerful ancient people (who ate more meat and exercised less) showed they were far less healthy than commoners (who ate little to no meat and exercised more).

There are no nutrients that we can get only from meat, that's commonly believed but is a complete falsehood.  I think it's very dangerous for people to counsel others towards specific diet and lifestyle recommendations based on conventional wisdom, rather than scientific fact.  You could actually be recommending they do things that harm them, as you have done here.  What nutrients are you referring to?  I'd love a citation.

There are nutrients that are not found in plants, and some people get these by eating meat.  But guess what?  Our bodies are also made of meat, and we get those nutrients the same way the animals do, by synthesizing them in our own bodies.  Our bodies can create vitamin D (which, despite its name, is actually a hormone), and our body can convert some kinds of nutrients into other kinds (for example, we can convert ALA indo DHA and EPA).  The main exception cited is vitamin B12, but that's created by bacteria.  Animals typically have it because they're used to eating from the ground.  If humans still ate vegetables right from the ground, and drank non-chlorinated drinking water, then we too would have all the B12 we need.  Factory-farmed animals are now being given B12 supplements (among a coctail of other supplements and antibiotics they're given), so you're just eating supplements after they've been filtered through animal flesh when you eat factory-farmed meat.

People have different starting levels of cholesterol.  Someone that can eat eggs every day without a cholesterol problem likely just has a low starting value of cholesterol.  Correlative studies on cholesterol so no relationship between diet and cholesterol only because they fail to take into account that people have different starting levels.  However, studies that study people's cholesterol level before increasing their intake and afterward invariably show that eating cholesterol-laden foods increases cholesterol levels in the body.

When it comes to optimal health, I don't recommend an omnivorous diet or a vegan diet, I recommend an *evidence*-based diet.  One that is based on the preponderence of the best scientific evidence, research that's funded by governments and academic institutions rather than studies conducted by corporations or other vested interests who know what result they need to obtain before they even start and who don't publish data that doesn't agree with their agenda.  I would never recommend a diet or lifestyle choice online based on conventional wisdom as I could inadvertently be counselling people to choices that will kill themselves.  However, recommending choices based on the preponderence of the best and the least-biased evidence, that's logical to me.  And right now, that's a plant-based diet.  One study looked at buddhists in Japan, many of which are vegan, but some of whom eat small amounts of meat.  All participants in the study ate high quality whole foods, but those that ate strictly plant-based whole foods were dramatically healthier and more vibrant than those who ate meat even only once a week.  SOURCE:  http://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-diets-and-diabetes/

You're right that there's more to being healthy than just eating well.  Exercise is important.  However, one study looked at sedentary vegans vs. omnivorous marathon runners.  Overall the sedentary vegans had better heart health than the super-fit omnivores.  SOURCE:  http://nutritionfacts.org/video/arteries-of-vegans-vs-runners/

And vegetarians overall are healthier than omnivores, but they still don't average in the healthy BMI range.  Neither do pescetarians.  Only vegans do.  And that's despite junk-food vegans pulling down the average.  I don't disagree with a word you said here, but I think it's important to keep it in context.  Exercise is a factor, and stress reduction is a factor, but diet appears to be the single biggest factor.

Are you assuming all veg-based people are like the small few you've seen?  Your statement is completely false.  The *only* American weightlifter to quality for the most recent Summer Olympics was vegan.  Growing numbers of athletes are going vegan, and often for performance reasons rather than ethical or health.  While animal protein and plant protein are equal at building muscle, animal products increase inflammation in the body so people on plant-based diets recover more quickly and can effectively work out more times per year.   SOURCE:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZrWIJF0i-s

The reason why to bother is that it can not only help you live longer, but help you be far more vibrant in old age.  The idea that people inevitably become decrepit in later years is a relatively new one, people used to be far more vibrant in old age (and still are in communities that are largely plant-based, such as the elderly in Okinawa and in the Adventist community in California).  SOURCE:  http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-okinawa-diet-living-to-100/

Yes I live in the Western World, and yes I live in a city (though a relatively small one that's thankfully free of any significant amount of air pollution).  And yes I'm on VGchartz so as you can guess I have a PC, and game consoles, and a smartphone.  I agree with your fundamental point.

I also believe that we can learn a lot from what worked in the past, however.  We used to eat almost entirely plant-based diets that were full of fibre and anti-oxidants, the former nurturing friendly bacteria in the body and the latter fighting cancer for us.  Now we eat large amounts of meat, dairy, eggs, and refined carbohydrates, which not only deprive our diet of the fibre and anti-oxidants we so desperately need, but they also do the reverse by damaging the bio-diversity of our gut bacteria and creating inflammation in the body.

The smoking gun here is that we've recently discovered a connection between a lot of diseases that used to be rare but have become common in modern times.  Heart disease, impotence, and a variety of neurological diseases may be connected.  Erectile dysfunction often has an emotional or psychological component, but that is frequently triggered by an initial failure to "perform".  That first failure to perform can be caused by cholesterol plaque building up in the penile artery, which is one of the smaller arteries in the body.  SOURCE:  http://nutritionfacts.org/video/survival-of-the-firmest-erectile-dysfunction-and-death/  Similarly, there's growing evidence that previously unexplained neurological diseases may be caused by plaque build-up in the brain.  SOURCE:  http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cholesterol-and-alzheimers-disease/  Rather than being separate conditions, they may all be the same condition: cholesterol plaque from dietary animal fat building up in different parts of the body.  If we're facing new problems, or an old problem that's becoming far more common, we can compare the past to the present to get an idea of what might have changed, and how that might be the cause.