What goodies from meat are you referring to?  Meat, dairy, and eggs are associated with a raft of diseases.  And the nutrients in them are all available from plant-based sources (yes, even B12).  I agree that you don't have to go all veg to lose weight, but there are incredible benefits to doing so.

I wonder if you feeling weaker is part of your preconceptions of what to expect?  A growing number of body builders are going vegan, and they're actually finding they gain muscle faster because the amount of recovery time required between workouts drops without meat, dairy, and eggs creating all kinds of inflammation in their bodies.

As opposed to all the citations others in this thread are offering (by which I mean, in most cases, absolutely none at all)? :) Nutritionfacts.org draws conclusions from studies.  But you can look at the studies they're citing and draw your own conclusions, and the link is useful for that alone.  Fox News is not nearly as well cited as Nutritionfacts.org, which is a key difference.  And I suspect Nutritionfacts.org commands a lot more respect than Fox News.  :)

And I've provided other citations than Nutritionfacts.org in recent posts, including one from the Baltimore Examiner (which is hardly a vegan mouthpiece, though I'd argue Nutritionfacts.org isn't either since they're simply evidence based).

A citation from a biased source is a good a no citation at all. As for whether or not nutritionfacts.org commands more resepct is a matter of opinion. Fox news does in fact back up most of their claims with evidence. The evidence is often partial or highly skewed in favor their narrative, just like CNN, and from what meager amount I have read (a handful of articles and a couple of their videos) Nutritionfacts.org does the exact same thing. But hey we all can draw our own conclusions as you say.

My conclucion is that it is not a valid source of scientific informaiton and is a site full of articles and videos with cherry picked information to suit their personal narrative.

Responding to scrapking: I didn't have any expectations. I'm just trying to lose weight really fast. It might be due to how often I've been going to the gym. Maybe not giving my body time to recover. I didn't even think about this thread until, coincidentally, it popped up in my feed.

The argument was about if eating meat is natural (which I personally think isirrelevant to the question of vegetarianism). In contrary to fats and sugars, a very large variety of amino acids is needed by human beings, not something humans can synthesize, unlike some purely vegetarian species. This diversity can be found, without much trouble, in a midern vegan diet, by eating nuts, beans, certain greenery... Together, they have all we need. However, in any given pre-bronze-age environnement, it was far from guaranteed that the edible plants available had everything. Eating animal substance assures this, since just as yourself the animal is constructed from the diverse amino acids. That is why humans at least occasionaly consumed meat (or other animal products) in pretty much all prehistoric societies. Our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, also primarily consume plant matter, but do go out of the way to hunt smaller animals (insects, if nothing else) from time to time, even if much harder to obtain, and a vegetarian diet readily available.

Dude there are lots of deceases that come from vegetables as well, you just know where to buy your products. I have never met a  nutriologist in real life that tells me to go all vegetarian, they say eat some meat, just dont abuse it. 

I'm fine with vegeetarian people really. My sister in law is vegetarian and she cooks great, not excellent. As for healthy issues we can provide evidence from both corners and in the end it will be  matter of preference, so dont try to convince everyone of your point.

Fair enough.  If you'd like then, ignore their conclusions and look at the citations.  I'd do the same if someone sent me a Fox news article, I'd ignore Fox News' conclusions but I'd be quite interested in their citations.

That said, I think it's dangerous to dismiss something because all their evidence points a certain way.  If I was sending you to a website that looked at studies about cancer, all their articles are going to conclude that smoking causes cancer, that excessive sun exposure increases skin cancer risk, that processed meat causes cancer, etc.  That in and of itself wouldn't mean they're biased, as the science is nearly universal that those things all cause cancer, so they'd be right to articuluate those conclusions.

With regards to the conclusions of Nutritionfacts.org, I look at them very similarly.  Research in general favours plant-based diets being the most nutritious by about a 2:1 ratio.  However, when you filter for the quality of research, it goes from only 2:1 to an overwhelming proportion favouring being plant-based.  A lot of the recent research that has come to alternate conclusions are funded by vested interests such as industries or marketing boards, and uses junk science that was doomed to fail (for example, a study on saturated fat that looks for correlation and doesn't adjust for the fact that people have different baseline cholesterol levels).  When you zero in on the most credible research by the doctors and scientists with the longest histories of publishing research, who submit themselves to the most rigourous peer review, and are funded by the least vested sources (universities, government health agencies, charities, etc.) then you have a range of studies that overwhelmingly conclude that consuming few-to-no animal products is the most healthy.  The World Health Organization says that all processed meats (including smoked and cured meats) cause cancer, and I find their analysis method more compelling than those used by studies on saturated fat paid for by egg companies, as an example of what I mean when comparing the quality of research relative to how vested the group paying for it is.  I see no evidence that Nutritionfacts.org is ignoring credible research, but I see ample evidence that they're favouring the most credible research, and so they should IMO.

But even with all that said, look at their citations and decide for yourself.  I do, and I tend to agree with their conclusions.

You misunderstand.  I didn't say that meat can carry-disease-causing things, I said meat itself is associated with causing disease.  The cleanest, leanest, most organic, most safely produced meat and dairy can cause heart disease and diabetes, and is strongly correlated to a raft of cancers and neurlogical disorders.  On the other hand, there's no disease that comes to humans from not eating meat.  However, there is a disease that humans have suffered for thousands of years that comes when we don't eat enough fruits and vegetables:  scurvy.

There are some plants that are poisonous, but since the definition of vegetable is safely edible vegetation they're not vegetables by the way people use that word.  It's possible for vegetables to become contaminated and to spread diseases like salmonella and e-coli, but despite people baselessly suggesting that such things com from migrant farm workers, vegetables are almost always contaminated by pathogens from being irrigated and/or fertilized by liquified feces from animal agriculture.  I'm not likely to worry about a farm worker pooping in a field, when that same field may have tens of thousands of litres of animal feces from factory farms sprayed on it.

There is evidence from both sides of the fence, but see above about how the majority of studies point to one side of the fence, and the overwhelming majority of the most *credible* studies decidedly point one way.  The most rigourous studies (for example, a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled, double-blind studies), and the studies funded by the least biased sources (meaning, not funded by corporations, marketing boards, and other vested interests who are trying to produce a specific result, and won't even publish a study if they don't get the result they need) all point in a certain direction.  And the direction that the majority of the most credible studies point is that a plant-based diet with little (and especially no) meat/dairy/eggs is the best way to go.  And they aren't suggesting health is just moderately improved on a plant-based diet, they're suggesting health is substantially improved.

If your goal is health, then don't eat an omnivorous diet, or a plant-based diet.  If your goal is health, then eat an *evidence* based diet.  And if you filter for quality, then the current evidence is overwhelming at the moment.  It's been strongly one way for a while, but it's become really overwhelming over the last 7 years or so.  One of the reasons why many nutritionists don't recommend a plant-based diet more strongly than they do, is many of them aren't caught up on the last several years of research, and as they get caught up many of them are shifting their recommendations accordingly.

The answer is NO. There's no proof that vegans live longer than anyone else. Some foods can harm you if used too much like, sugar, salt, saturated fat, etc.

This thread is quite interesting. Very neat to see all the facts about the subject.

Plants indeed do have organs, and indeed also have a vascular system that moves fluid which have the same basic function as blood

https://www.boundless.com/biology/textbooks/boundless-biology-textbook/plant-form-and-physiology-30/the-plant-body-178/plant-tissues-and-organ-systems-684-11908/ 

Research has shown that plants can indeed have something approximating "thinking and remembering"

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/new-research-plant-intelligence-may-forever-change-how-you-think-about-plants 

http://www.bbc.com/news/10598926 

It really looks like you're trying to convince yourself as if you're not alrady convinced of being a vegetarian. I really thanks for all the information given. I honestly think I couldn't live without eating meat and other things. I don't consider vegetarian/vegan to be bad but quite the opposite. It just not for me!