Great Vegan Debate

[Johnny Dangerous]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219620/

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02481466
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29807048

This is what proofs look like. Vegan diets saving lives, and reducing deadly disease. No one is saying it is for everyone. No one is promoting a fad. Its just published science. Maybe DGA thought no one would look at other studies besides the one he posted. It's not a good debate, because he forgot to bring relevant proofs.

It's never been controversial that eating less red meat, saturated fat, and animal products and more vegetables, good fats etc. is healthier.

AFAICT you are misrepresenting these articles by claiming they represent "proof" of the health of an exclusively vegan diet vs. simply a healthy omnivorous one.

[SunWuKong]

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02481466
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29807048

This is what proofs look like. Vegan diets saving lives, and reducing deadly disease. No one is saying it is for everyone. No one is promoting a fad. Its just published science. Maybe DGA thought no one would look at other studies besides the one he posted. It's not a good debate, because he forgot to bring relevant proofs.

It's never been controversial that eating less red meat, saturated fat, and animal products and more vegetables, good fats etc. is healthier.

AFAICT you are misrepresenting these articles by claiming they represent "proof" of the health of an exclusively vegan diet vs. simply a healthy omnivorous one.

Studies from the original Ornish Diet and studies from Dr Jenkins Portfolio Diet are vegan diets, actually. By feeding the body a steady supply of meat and fish proteins and fats, the liver absorbs an abundance of components with which it manufactures excellerated LDL levels. For people with family histories of high LDL, low HDL cholesterol in particular. Sorry that the evidence is against you on this one. Calling vegan diet an eating disorder? Not if it is medically recommended. Claim disproven. It's a simple debate. Next time bring your A-Game

[Johnny Dangerous]

This is what proofs look like. Vegan diets saving lives, and reducing deadly disease. No one is saying it is for everyone. No one is promoting a fad. Its just published science. Maybe DGA thought no one would look at other studies besides the one he posted. It's not a good debate, because he forgot to bring relevant proofs.

It's never been controversial that eating less red meat, saturated fat, and animal products and more vegetables, good fats etc. is healthier.

AFAICT you are misrepresenting these articles by claiming they represent "proof" of the health of an exclusively vegan diet vs. simply a healthy omnivorous one.

Studies from the original Ornish Diet and studies from Dr Jenkins Portfolio Diet are vegan diets, actually. By feeding the body a steady supply of meat and fish proteins and fats, the liver absorbs an abundance of components with which it manufactures excellerated LDL levels. For people with family histories of high LDL, low HDL cholesterol in particular. Sorry that the evidence is against you on this one. Calling vegan diet an eating disorder? Not if it is medically recommended. Claim disproven. It's a simple debate. Next time bring your A-Game

Bring my a game? 1) The studies you posted don't even back up your claim, I read them, they address the health of specific foods, and are not side by side comparisons with omnivorous diets that I saw. 2) I never said veganism was an eating disorder 3) Really, you don't need to get all cute and snarky every time we talk, and we are gonna butt heads if you keep it up.

[tatpurusa]

Oh MAN, this is going to be good.

It’s not good, because the NIH link is not even about veganism. DGA came to the debate with no evidence.

The original Ornish diet scientifically proved beyond a shadow of doubt that his diet lowers cholesterol and reduces heart disease. Ditto for Dr. Jenkins. Currently plant based diets are showing evidence of reducing cancer as well. I’ll follow up with the studies that actually pertain to these two diets, which are, among other things vegan.

https://www.uclahealth.org/lifestyle-me ... Review.pdf

So, when prescribed by a doctor, some vegan diets are not an eating disorders. It's following a doctors orders to save your life.

For the sake of a balanced view:
Why Almost Everything Dean Ornish Says about Nutrition Is Wrong. UPDATED: With Dean Ornish's Response
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... redirect=1

[tatpurusa]

Who is Michael Greger

A person who quotes actual peer reviewed scientific studies, rather than internet blogs, pop magazines and political conspiracy websites, none of which are good sources of information.

Had you read the links I posted to this question you would see that he is not a researcher, just a general health practitioner.
Besides he is a Vegan activist, thus not reliable as a source of objective, neutral information.
https://www.stopbeingconfusedabouthealt ... eger-pt-1/
https://www.thatnerdysciencegirl.com/20 ... tionfacts/

I personally find that veganism can have valid and noble motives, like not wanting to hurt other sentient beings.
But vegans should say just that, instead of pretending that this kind of diet is healthier and more ecologically sustainable than a balanced omnivorous diet, when it is cleary not.
On the contrary, it is rather problematic.
I also would question the kindness and compassion motives of those aggressive, extremist vegans who attack persons following different lifestyles.

[seeker242]

Had you read the links I posted to this question you would see that he is not a researcher, just a general health practitioner.
Besides he is a Vegan activist, thus not reliable as a source of objective, neutral information.
https://www.stopbeingconfusedabouthealt ... eger-pt-1/
https://www.thatnerdysciencegirl.com/20 ... tionfacts/

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.

~Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704/

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is the largest organization of nutrition professionals in the world, they are 100 times more credible than anything you have posted so far. Nothing that you have posted so far is a reliable source of information. Like I said before, some guy with a blog is not an accurate source of information, which is exactly what you just posted, twice.

I personally find that veganism can have valid and noble motives, like not wanting to hurt other sentient beings.
But vegans should say just that, instead of pretending that this kind of diet is healthier and more ecologically sustainable than a balanced omnivorous diet, when it is cleary not.

You claimed a vegan diet is inherently nutritionally deficient, a mental disorder, causes people serious damage and has the "the unavoidable capacity to cripple and kill" children. Those statements are clearly false. Like I said before, if you make false statements about veganism, in a debate veganism thread, you should not be surprised when someone challenges them.

I also would question the kindness and compassion motives of those aggressive, extremist vegans who attack persons following different lifestyles.

In other words, if you make false statements about a vegan diet, you don't want anyone challenging them. I'm sorry, but that's clearly unreasonable.

[tatpurusa]

In other words, if you make false statements about a vegan diet, you don't want anyone challenging them. I'm sorry, but that's clearly unreasonable.

Sorry, but with this statement I was not referring to me at all.
Rather to vegan activists who attack butcher shops (for example as it happened in France) and other people who follow different ideas.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20190408/french ... hers-shops

[tatpurusa]

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.

~Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704/

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is the largest organization of nutrition professionals in the world, they are 100 times more credible than anything you have posted so far. Nothing that you have posted so far is a reliable source of information. Like I said before, some guy with a blog is not an accurate source of information, which is exactly what you just posted, twice.

Yes. They are so credible that their recommendations helped create the low fat, high carb, high sugar standard American diet making people incredibly obese, diabetic, having heart disease and cancer. Extremely credible judging by the results.

[seeker242]

Sorry, but with this statement I was not referring to me at all.
Rather to vegan activists who attack butcher shops (for example as it happened in France) and other people who follow different ideas.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20190408/french ... hers-shops

I would not attack a butcher shop, or any other shop for that matter. However, it's not just about "following different ideas". It's about the daily mass slaughtering of billions of animals. That's not an idea. That kind of action is much more than just a "different idea". And this doesn't even begin to touch on how damaging animal agriculture is to the environment and planet. That alone is enough justification of veganism.

Yes. They are so credible that their recommendations helped create the low fat, high carb, high sugar standard American diet making people incredibly obese, diabetic, having heart disease and cancer. Extremely credible judging by the results.

Yes, much more credible than you claiming it has "the unavoidable capacity to cripple and kill" children, which it clearly does not. And it's really no secret that vegans suffer less obesity, less diabetes, less heart disease and less cancer.

[tatpurusa]

Sorry, but with this statement I was not referring to me at all.
Rather to vegan activists who attack butcher shops (for example as it happened in France) and other people who follow different ideas.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20190408/french ... hers-shops

I would not attack a butcher shop, or any other shop for that matter. However, it's not just about "following different ideas". It's about the daily mass slaughtering of billions of animals. That's not an idea. That kind of action is much more than just a "different idea". And this doesn't even begin to touch on how damaging animal agriculture is to the environment and planet. That alone is enough justification of veganism.

This is not a justification of veganism. Those extreme behaviors could be corrected, just like the extreme behavior of GMO and toxin use in the agriculture in general.

Yes. They are so credible that their recommendations helped create the low fat, high carb, high sugar standard American diet making people incredibly obese, diabetic, having heart disease and cancer. Extremely credible judging by the results.

Yes, much more credible than you claiming it has "the unavoidable capacity to cripple and kill" children, which it clearly does not. And it's really no secret that vegans suffer less obesity, less diabetes, less heart disease and less cancer.

Vegan diet might be a better than the standard American diet, but I do not compare it with that.
The alternative is a balanced omnivorous diet based on a sustainable, ecological, toxin-free agriculture.
By the way those stories (and many more) of vegan children with extreme malnutrition are authentic.

[seeker242]

This is not a justification of veganism. Those extreme behaviors could be corrected, just like the extreme behavior of GMO and toxin use in the agriculture in general.

Yes, it is a justification as veganism is a way to correct those extreme behaviors.

Vegan diet might be a better than the standard American diet, but I do not compare it with that.

No, you claimed it's inherently nutritionally deficient, unnatural, which is irrelevant, and even dangerous, which it is not.

By the way those stories (and many more) of vegan children with extreme malnutrition are authentic.

None of which have anything to do with the inherent nature of a vegan diet. Such circumstances are easily avoidable.

[tatpurusa]

Vegan diet might be a better than the standard American diet, but I do not compare it with that.

No, you claimed it's inherently nutritionally deficient, unnatural, which is irrelevant, and even dangerous, which it is not.

Of course you have to make the notion of "natural" irrelevant in order to make veganism look a bit better.
"Natural" has nothing to do with good or bad (as you would like me to have claimed.) In this context it means "corresponding to the nature of human physiology". That means the nutrients and real foods that our organisms have adapted to thrive on during our millions of years long evolution.
An this was in most cases an omnivorous diet. In this sense veganism is yes, unnatural.
Though there have been examples of peoples and cultures living on vegetarian diets (like in India); there has never in human history existed
a people or culture that lived on a pure vegan diet, ever. Some animal products have always been included, for a reason.
On the other hand, there have existed several peoples who thrived on an almost exclusiviely animal-sourced diet (like the Eskimos and others) with excellent health.

By the way those stories (and many more) of vegan children with extreme malnutrition are authentic.

None of which have anything to do with the inherent nature of a vegan diet. Such circumstances are easily avoidable.

Not so easily. You have to include industrially produced supplements, many different ones in order to stay healthy longer term.
In case of children these missing nutrients are much more devastating and dangerous.

[seeker242]

Of course you have to make the notion of "natural" irrelevant in order to make veganism look a bit better.
"Natural" has nothing to do with good or bad (as you would like me to have claimed.) In this context it means "corresponding to the nature of human physiology". That means the nutrients and real foods that our organisms have adapted to thrive on during our millions of years long evolution.
An this was in most cases an omnivorous diet. In this sense veganism is yes, unnatural.

Of course you have to make the claim that's it's unnatural, because you don't have an actual reasonable argument to make.

Not so easily. You have to include industrially produced supplements, many different ones in order to stay healthy longer term.
In case of children these missing nutrients are much more devastating and dangerous.

Very easily. I've been doing it for over 25 years. It's also very easy for children as well. It's not even close to being "unavoidable" like you have claimed.

[Simon E.]

I have no brief for veganism at all.In fact I am not even vegetarian, but claims of long term damage do not hold water. We in the UK are seeing the 3rd generation of vegan kids, and there is no sign of developmental damage or harm , and believe me it has been looked for.
There may be issues around the individuals relationship to the prevailing culture in socio-psychological terms, but there is no evidence of physiological harm.

[Simon E.]

Just to add..I too cannot eat a veg diet without my health suffering. And believe me I tried
for years on and off. But I know people who thrive on veggie and vegan. The important thing it seems to me is not to see it as some kind of absolute standard. No one was ever Enlightened by lunch.

At this point I usually throw in the anecdote about sharing a plate of chicken with HH the Dalai Lama. But I have given up name dropping. Just like the 16th Karmapa suggested I should..

[tatpurusa]

Of course you have to make the notion of "natural" irrelevant in order to make veganism look a bit better.
"Natural" has nothing to do with good or bad (as you would like me to have claimed.) In this context it means "corresponding to the nature of human physiology". That means the nutrients and real foods that our organisms have adapted to thrive on during our millions of years long evolution.
An this was in most cases an omnivorous diet. In this sense veganism is yes, unnatural.

Of course you have to make the claim that's it's unnatural, because you don't have an actual reasonable argument to make.

In German actually exists a much better expression: Widernatürlich. Meaning "going against, contrary to human nature."

Not so easily. You have to include industrially produced supplements, many different ones in order to stay healthy longer term.
In case of children these missing nutrients are much more devastating and dangerous.

Very easily. I've been doing it for over 25 years. It's also very easy for children as well. It's not even close to being "unavoidable" like you have claimed.

Safe for children
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... n-ill.html
Safe for adults
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... pause.html
A case of a vegan mother breast-feeding her baby:
BRAIN DAMAGE IN INFANCY AND DIETARY VITAMIN B12 DEFICIENCY
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... tb112643.x

[Simon E.]

Of course it’s not against nature. Nature is whatever we say it is. Humanity is part of nature. Not something alien to nature.
Ergo, whatever humanity does is natural. It might be a bad idea..but that is a different discussion.

[Simon E.]

A word to the wise...if you want to be taken seriously by Brit readers do not use the Daily Mail as your source material.

[tatpurusa]

Micro-nutrient supplementation and the intelligence of children

The evidence is that not all children respond to supplementation, rather there is a minority who benefit, whose diet offers low amounts of micro-nutrients.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 340100015X

[seeker242]

Safe for children
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/arti ... n-ill.html
Safe for adults
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/arti ... pause.html
A case of a vegan mother breast-feeding her baby:

Daily mail is probably one of the most unreliable sources there is on the whole of the internet.

BRAIN DAMAGE IN INFANCY AND DIETARY VITAMIN B12 DEFICIENCY
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... tb112643.x

"Investigations revealed a mild nutritional vitamin B12 deficiency in the mother"

Easily preventable, as the article itself states. "It is recommended that all strict vegetarians (vegans), especially women in the child‐bearing age group, take vitamin B12 supplements"

That is nothing new. This is already well known and is easily preventable.

Micro-nutrient supplementation and the intelligence of children

The evidence is that not all children respond to supplementation, rather there is a minority who benefit, whose diet offers low amounts of micro-nutrients.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 340100015X

And what that means is that if a child does not need supplementation, then it is of little benefit. No surprise there. And if a child does have low amounts of micro-nutrients in their diet, those are the children that benefit from them. No surprise there either. This study simply confirms that vegan children should supplement. This is already well known and easy to do.