Is becoming a vegetarian/vegan worth it?

[Azuren]

scrapking said:

Azuren said:

Anecdotal evidence is simply anecdotal. It's not there to prove anything, it's there because it shows that being vegan isn't as cut-and-dry as vegans want people to think. Vegans do tend to be thinner, but that's almost never because they're healthy be ause most vegans don't know how to properly be vegan in a healthy way. Many are like my brother: changing diet with only the okay from a rabidly vegan dietician (the worst kind of dietician).

 

As far as the "fish are tainted" argument is concerned, first of all a healthy diet includes one, maybe two meat-centric meals a week, so most of those fears are quashed fairly quickly by moderation. And as far as the polluted argument as a whole is concerned, you'd have to be grossly naive to think your fruits and veggies are noticeably better.

 

And you're still getting B12 in readily available sources, as opposed to your leafy greens that were "washed in rainwater" (Warning: WILL contain levels of feces that can dip into what the FCC would refer to as unacceptable). B12 is just something you're not going to get enough of as a vegan.

 

And more readily absorbed protein is that which has been processed by animals more fit for a vegan diet.

 

Never said it was only in fish, I said "almost exclusive". And surprise: the omegas you get from flax and algae are- you guessed it- not readily absorbed by the human body.

 

Most B12 supplements are derived from animal B12. The process to extract B12 from bacteria into pill form isn't a widely used practice for whatever reason, making truly vegan B12 hard to get.

 

As for this next paragraph, you pretty much dismiss every "Veganism can be healthy"  argument, since most rely heavily on supplements. Yes, you can do it without, but only the most hardcore will do so.

 

And what? My anecdotal evidence is null and void but yours isn't?

 

As a closing statement on this post, humans have had meat in their diet from long before they even invented tools. We're talking tens of thousands of years, across multiple species and continents. Not only that, but there's never been a functioning vegan society. Sure, some societies had less access to meat, but it was because of scarcity, not conscious decision. You can be vegan, and if it works for you, fine. But don't lie to people about the potential danger of such a drastic diet change, because then you get scenarios where quack doctors pissing an agenda end up actively causing harm to people like my brother.

I didn’t say your anecdotal evidence is bad and mine is good.  Over the course of this thread, I’ve provided dozens of citations.  I occasionally add anecdotes to my comments as well (usually my personal experience), but those are simply to add texture to my citations.  You provided no citations, yet made claims, and provided nothing other than an anecdote to support your claim.

Nothing is cut and dried when it comes to an individual, but things can be cut and dried when it comes to population studies.  If only vegans average (note the word average) in the healthy BMI range, and every other group (including vegetarians) average above the healthy BMI range, then that’s important and valuable research that makes your anecdotes and mine equally irrelevant.  You then go on to say that vegans are thinner “but that's almost never because they're healthy,” and this is where your argument falls apart as you are making an important claim, with nothing other than an anecdote to back it up.  In fact, study after study shows that vegans typically *are* healthy.  They don’t average in the underweight zone, they average in the healthy BMI zone, and I’ve previously provided a citation for that.  Sedentary vegans have better heart health than marathon-running omnivores on average, and I’ve previously provided a citation for that.  Vegans are less likely to get a raft of cancers than omnivores, and I’ve previous provided a citation for that.  They’re less likely to get heart disease, to suffer a stroke, to have erectile dysfunction, etc.

A vegan dietitian is the worst kind of dietitian?  You come off sounding like you have an axe to grind.  I think the worst kind of dietitian is one who is behind on the best/most independent (not funded by vested interests) science and/or doesn’t communicate the best science to their clients for fear that they won’t stick to it.  I’d rather dietitians give it to people straight, and let people make their own compromises.

Fruits and veggies are as polluted in mercury and PCBs as fish?  Again with your bold, unsupported claims.  The foods highest in PCBs are all animal products:  http://www.dirksfish.com/pdf_files/PCBs_in_Food.pdf  Similarly, the foods highest in mercury are animal foods:  https://www.livestrong.com/article/318127-list-of-foods-that-are-high-in-mercury/  Importantly, fruits and vegetables have potent anti-oxidant abilities, so they’re typically less likely to be contaminated and they’re more likely to help the body cope with what contaminants it does get exposed to (such as all that Fukushima radiation that got dumped into the ocean, as one example).  http://www.hungryforchange.tv/article/19-foods-to-naturally-detox-radiation

Again with the B12.  Did you read my previous posts?  I’m genuinely curious.  B12 comes from bacteria.  Factory farmed animals are given B12 supplements.  If you eat meat from the grocery store or a restaurant, odds are high that you’re getting supplemented B12 yourself.  Getting a B12 supplement filtered through an animal’s body, rather than just taking one directly, isn’t a very compelling argument to me.  As for your claim that most B12 supplements aren’t vegan, I have done several web searches and have been unable to corroborate your claim.  So without a source from you, I’m not sure what to make of your claim.

Your protein argument is a non-scientific argument that has been roundly debunked.  Vegans have similar blood levels of protein to omnivores.  Most people, vegans included, absorb more protein than is ideal for optimal health.  So less readily absorbable protein is if anything *ideal* for optimal human health.  There’s growing evidence that an abundance of protein in the diet has an anti-nutrient effect on the body, tying up your your body trying (and largely failing) to absorb excess protein when it could and should be focused on absorbing other nutrients instead.

I would be surprised if your uncited and unsubstantiated claim that the omegas from flax seed weren’t readily absorbable by the body, since the science says otherwise.  The omega 3s in ground flaxseed are readily absorbable.  I *think* you may be confusion the arguments around absorption vs. the arguments around ALA conversion.

As for absorbing omega 3s from algae?  Dah fuk?  The nutrients in algae are some of the most readily absorbable on the planet.  You do know that algae is the source for omega 3s for the fish, right?

You then claim only the hardcore will be healthy on a vegan diet without supplements, but again the facts suggest otherwise.  I’ve previously provided a citation that the average vegan in the U.S. is deficient in 3 essential nutrients, but that the average omnivore in the U.S. is deficient in 7 essential nutrients, for example.  The majority of the supplement industry is marketed towards omnivores, it’s only a small sub-set of the industry that chooses to offer its products in what it designates as vegan (eg. egg-free, dairy-free, gelatin-free, etc.).  Most either aren’t vegan, or don’t choose to market themselves as vegan, as omnivores are their target audience.  Obviously that makes sense since omnivores are the majority of the population, but it does speak to the fact that millions of omnivores choose to supplement.  So the supplement argument is a non-starter, especially since vegans statistically are less deficient on average than omnivores.

I find it interesting that you even offer a “closing statement” as if you were trying to prove your case.  You haven’t many claims but no citations, so offering a closing statement is premature.  I disagree with much of what you’ve said, and have previously provided a large number of citations as to why I disagree.

Again with your claims that ancient societies all had a meat-based focus, or high levels of meat in their diet.  Again, rehydrated fossilized human stool, hair analysis, and more differs from that claim.  Citations previously provided if you scroll back.

Finally, you end by calling me a liar.  You haven’t provided a single citation, I’ve provided dozens, and I’m a liar?  That’s pretty damn crazy, you realize that right?  I’m not lying at all, this is what I personally believe, this is what I’m personally experiencing, and this is what the evidence is showing.  Vegans in general are healthier than omnivores in general.  Look at my previously posted citation to the Adventist studies.  They pit healthy omnivores vs. healthy vegetarians vs. healthy vegans (since adventists tend to take their overall health very seriously).  The vegans suffered less cancer, less heart disease, less diabetes, and less overall mortality.  You believe based on your relative’s experience that it’s hard to be healthy as a vegan, but the evidence doesn’t bear that out.  When I see all the omnivores dropping dead of heart disease, and stroke, and diabetes, it seems like being a healthy omnivore is what’s perilously hard.

I'm going to just assume you're taking statistics out of context and lean on those until your thyroids give up and you're forced to adopt meat into your diet. "Only vegans have healthy BMI"? Really? Let's look at the rest of the statistics: how many of those people are active? How many don't have time to exercise because of life events? How many live in countries where $1 burgers are a thing? Vegans have a healthy BMI because it's a diet that lacks fat almost entirely, so there's less need to exercise. But, you know, keep drawing whatever conclusions you want. Fact of the matter is veganism is a diet that supports inactive lifestyles, which is what the world has very rapidly become over the last thirty years.

 

The point on fruits and vegetables wasn't a "oh, they have Mercury" comment. It was a "nothing is healthy when you overanalyze everything" comment. Which is true unless you grow your own food in soil you received from a place that industrial man has never touched. But you know, keep it up with the out of context shenanigans.

 

B12 again, let me spell it out for you: omnivores don't care where it comes from. And they get it. Grats to them. Vegans do, and most B12 supplements are animal-based. No, I don't have a citation, because I don't have time to troll the internet for it. All I have is the word of a real dietician. Take it how you want, but I'll be laughing all the way to the bank when you use B12 supplements that have animal biproducts in it.

 

Plant-based omegas are ALA, which have to be converted into EPA or DHA to be used. The conversion rates for those are 21% and below, even lower for men. So no, they're not readily absorbed- like most plant nutrients, everything you get from flax and algae have to be converted into something else before your body can take it. Th e reason it's more readily absorbed by fish meat is because ]it was already processed by the fish. It'st kind of silly how you pretty much already pointed out the flaw in vegan logic, but acted like it was nothing.

 

Most vegans are super unhealthy because they have no idea how to be vegan. You can throw citations at me all you want, but you are, again, forgetting context. Every vegan from here to Timbuktu knows there are vitamin deficiencies in their diet of choice because everyone tells them that as an attempt to get them to deny the punch they drank. So they take supplements haphazardly, usually resulting in the dimmer ones taking animal biproducts by mistake (always a good laugh when I used to work at a grocer). They're not healthier because of they're diet, they're just more loaded down with nutrients as a direct result of people warning them about it. If that study was for real, it'd only be showing people who don't take multivitamin supplements.

 

((Skipping a response to these next paragraphs because I don't care about your "where are your citations" rant))

 

 

You know what's more dangerous than lying? Giving cherry-picked evidence and ignoring context to make a point. Vegans are, statistically, the most conscious people when it comes  to their diets. So when you give numbers of vegans versus normal people, you kindly leave out that were comparing nutritionally-minded people to lazy slobs, right? I would like to see some more accurate numbers. I dunno, maybe we can put  dieticians against each other instead of average Joe's against "does this have milk or eggs" nutters. And in the face of all your demands for citations, you have still never addressed the fact that mankind evolved to eat meat. Should we be eating as much meat as we do now? Good lord, no. The meat industry is ruining people at a young age with excess meat consumption. That's something I'm sure we can agree on, but removing meat entirely from your diet is a risky maneuver that people should treat with the utmost care. No, it's not the end of the world if you go vegan. Yes, you can be a healthy vegan if you're devoted enough (as long as your thyroids aren't shit). But eating meat would be better for you in the long run if you learn self control.