Is becoming a vegetarian/vegan worth it?

[scrapking]

Shadow1980 said:

scrapking said:

The research doesn't back you up.  Even if there weren't proven health benefits to a whole food plant-based diet, there are health detriments that are all but solely associated with omnivorous diets.

Uh huh...

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/
http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2014/03/13/3962359.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/29/long-term-vegetarian-diet-changes-human-dna-raising-risk-of-canc/

There is no consistent research that suggests that veganism is, when correcting for all other factors, inherently, obviously, and significantly better than a well-balanced omnivorous diet.

but cholesterol is only found in animal products

Cholesterol is not inherently bad for you. It depends on the kind and amount. Hell, your body makes cholesterol on its own because it needs it.

There's growing evidence that while MS may be caused by genetics, the rate at which symptoms progress (or not) is affected by diet for many people.  People diagnosed with the early stages of multiple sclerosis have symptoms stay the same or lesson in 95% of cases if they switch to a whole food plant-based diet, whereas MS patients who stay on an omnivorous diet see symptoms continue to worsen in almost 100% of cases.

MS patients, who are at most about 0.1% of the population, are a special case. Some people may have health conditions that warrant excluding meat from their diet. For the average person, vegetarianism/veganism is not inherently healthier as far as anyone can tell. It's like gluten: totally harmless unless you have celiac. But, like veganism, "gluten free" and other fad diets are more a lifestyle based on woo than a diet based on any real evidence regarding its overal healthiness.

That's stronger correlative evidence than we have for smoking causing cancer (as we have yet to "prove" that cigarettes cause cancer, as that would involve clinical trials where people were given cancer, so we've accepted the correlative evidence is strong enough and stopped there).  I don't want to be "that guy" who suggests a miracle cure to someone with a condition, yet the scientific evidence on this is strong and growing.

We've known for decades that tobacco smoke is highly carcinogenic, and smoking clearly increases risk of lung cancer by a massive amount and results in an overall significant reduction in average life span. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that meat, when consumed in moderation and in the right form (meaning eating lean grass-fed beef and other higher-quality red meats and any non-red meats, and not wolfing down bacon and Big Macs by the pound on a regular basis), will cause the average person to live a statistically significant shorter and/or unhealthier life. Eating too much red meat might raise your risk of colon cancer a bit, but that's not the same as saying that eating any meat (or animal products in general) at all greatly increases your risk of cancer. I personally eat on average at most half the 50 g/day of processed or red meats recommended by several health organizations (e.g., AICR and NHS). Equating eating meat to smoking or even downplaying smoking's health risks relative to eating meat is beyond disingenuous.

Research regarding diet is honestly all over the place. Humans are very complex and all of us have our own unique health. Something that's harmless to you might kill me and vice versa. In most cases nobody knows for sure what exactly is more healthy diet-wise because there's nothing consistent one way or another. For example, are coffee or eggs good or bad for you? There's no definite answer. Also, most of the health "information" out there on the web is quite frankly based on a lot of woo and other nonsense. As far as I can tell, whether its veganism or paleo or gluten-free or Atkins or whatever, most of these "healthy" diets are just fad diets that don't have clear health benefits for the average person. I know a lot of people get their health advice from quacks like Mercola, Mike Adams, and Dr. Oz. But there is very little in the way of any clear, helpful, universal dietary advice besides "don't eat fast food all the time, don't drink alcohol much, eat a balanced diet, and get some exercise." Avoiding tobacco and other recreational drugs is probably a good idea, too, though that's only tangentially related.

You've edited my quote to include a whole bunch of stuff that I didn't say, and much of which I disagree with.  Someone coming into this conversation late might think I am articulating those positions, which I absolutely am not.  That's not cool.

If I presume that was meant to be a response to me, rather than a misquote of me, I'll simply add that you don't appear to have understood what I was saying.  I believe the preponderence of new evidence appears to be pointing in the direction of a whole food plant-based diet being the best.  Note I didn't say "vegan".  Studies on vegan health versus vegetarians vs. pesceterians, vs. omnivores, etc., are not what I am talking about.  I'm talking about research that looks at a whole food vegan, meaning someone who eats raw and/or cooked whole foods.  The term vegan, and many of the studies that comment on the vegan diet, include so-called "junk food" vegans.

You can be vegan and eat Oreo cookies.  You can be vegan and eat Tofurkey.  I don't eat either of the above.  If you're eating processed foods, then you're not on an exclusively whole food plant-based diet.  I believe, and there's a growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates, that being on a whole food plant-based diet is wildly nutritious and helps you avoid disease.  I'm the first to admit that more research needs to be done, but that's always the case.  If you're eating Tofurkey, or other processed foods, then you're not a whole food vegan and any study that includes you is not producing results related to what I'm talking about.  Studies on vegans that treat all vegans as one category, and especially studies that don't narrow things down any further than vegetarians, are potentially interesting but have very little to do with my arguments, so the citations and comments you added to my quote are of little relevance to my fundamental point.