"Death by Veganism" NYT opinion piece - Page 6

[meowee]

Originally Posted by UUMom

Grey back gorillas are not vegans or even vegetarian. They eat insects, caterpillars, and termites as well as plants and fruits. Also, some of the leaves they eat have a surpsingly hefty amount of protein.

Most animals who graze get a great amount of protein through insects, and their bodies utilize the protein in leaves and such in a different way than humans do. I don't think we can really compare our diets.

Further, gorillas nurse a good amount of time. As I said, I am not talking about adults, I am talking about human children who grow at such a rapid rate, and need to grow large brains-- and therefore do have different nutritional needs as compared to a full grown adult.

True, but the non-vegan percentage of their diet is no more than 10% and usually closer to 2%. And what you say about dairy is exactly my point... I don't know how you would adjust the years, but human children need dairy (preferably mother's but a substitute animal if not possible) for the same ratio of their lifespan as other primates.

Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.

It is common for the young of a species to eat differently from the adults of that species. I believe there is a type of ant that is carniverous as young but vegan as adults.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by meowee

True, but the non-vegan percentage of their diet is no more than 10% and usually closer to 2%. And what you say about dairy is exactly my point... I don't know how you would adjust the years, but human children need dairy (preferably mother's but a substitute animal if not possible) for the same ratio of their lifespan as other primates.

Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.

It is common for the young of a species to eat differently from the adults of that species. I believe there is a type of ant that is carniverous as young but vegan as adults.

i agree with this. i don't necissarily think you *must* eat some animal products to live but i don't think a itty bit of animal products is unhealthy. but then there is the ethical issue for many...

[NotTheOnlyOne]

[QUOTE=meowee;8209780]Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.
QUOTE]


What about nursing or pregnant mothers? I wonder what a nursing gorilla's diet is.... it has to be a little different than when she is not nursing. Its been said about 5 times in this thread already, but I am going to say it again for myself: I was vegan for 3 years in highschool and into college. I lost a ton of weight (that I needed to!) and was feeling really good for the first year. By the end of the thrid year though it was obvious my health was failing. I have permenant blood sugar issues now because of something that happened during that time in my life. I agree we don't need animal products every day, but *I* am not healthy without them and I won't risk my son's health in that way either.

Aside from the ethical issue (which I know is major for some) how can you justify that a vegan diet is MORE nutritious that an omni diet? I mean... by definition an omni diet includes EVERYthing and a vegan diet doesn't even come close. So if an omni is eating everything a vegan eats PLUS some milk, eggs, cheese and a hamburger or two... how can that be LESS healthy than a vegan?

[AmyLaz]

Originally Posted by momtosimon

Aside from the ethical issue (which I know is major for some) how can you justify that a vegan diet is MORE nutritious that an omni diet? I mean... by definition an omni diet includes EVERYthing and a vegan diet doesn't even come close. So if an omni is eating everything a vegan eats PLUS some milk, eggs, cheese and a hamburger or two... how can that be LESS healthy than a vegan?

Because "EVERYthing" is not always healthy. More does not always equal better.

[holyhelianthus]

the nutrients that are found in milk and eggs and meat can be found in plants and nuts and beans etc. veg*ns aren't lacking because they don't eat these foods because they just make a shift from getting those nutrients from those foods to getting them from others.

ETA- also veg*ns aren't getting the unneeded excess hormones that animals produce naturally and that some are given artificially.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by meowee

But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.

If omnis would choose to eat the healthiest meat and dairy (i.e., grass-fed and not lean), I'll bet they could eat far less of both and feel fine. If they would improve any digestion issues they had, that would be even better.

Personally nothing is more satisfying that a grass-fed, marbled steak cooked in butter. I only need to eat the recommended amount (the size of a stack of playing cards) to feel absolutely fabulous. Unfortunately (price-wise) other meats and eggs don't give nearly the same feel-good boost. Must be the carnitine or something.

In addition, eating meat only once or twice a month is not an option for me. That is far too little for me to feel right. However, I do try to eat the least amount to feel the best. When it's hot I can cut way down too.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by magstphil

the nutrients that are found in milk and eggs and meat can be found in plants and nuts and beans etc.

That's not true. Meat and dairy contain lots of nutrients that aren't in veggies.

The other problem with this argument is that the nutrients in meat are far more bio-available than what's in veggies. That is probably why some people don't do well on a veg*n diet, especially a low-fat one, and why even omnis who don't eat enough fat (which helps you absorb the nutrients in food) suffer health-wise.

ETA- also veg*ns aren't getting the unneeded excess hormones that animals produce naturally and that some are given artificially.

Well, the phytoestrogens in soy are poison for my body. But for some reason, high-quality meat and dairy are perfectly fine. Yet other people do fine on soy and not so well on meat and dairy.

[meowee]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

That's not true. Meat and dairy contain lots of nutrients that aren't in veggies.

The other problem with this argument is that the nutrients in meat are far more bio-available than what's in veggies. That is probably why some people don't do well on a veg*n diet, especially a low-fat one, and why even omnis who don't eat enough fat (which helps you absorb the nutrients in food) suffer health-wise.

The only two nutrients absent in vegan foods were b12 and vit D. Granted, both are very important, but you make it sound like it's a lot more than that.

[holyhelianthus]

: to meowee
plants have a higher level of bioavailability for calcium then dairy just to name *one* example. sure, veg*ns need to eat more of whatever plant or legume it is to get certain nutrients but thats not a bad thing especially when we take into account the adverse affects of eating excessive amounts of animal products- high cholesterol is the first thing that comes to mind.

[meowee]

Originally Posted by momtosimon

Aside from the ethical issue (which I know is major for some) how can you justify that a vegan diet is MORE nutritious that an omni diet? I mean... by definition an omni diet includes EVERYthing and a vegan diet doesn't even come close. So if an omni is eating everything a vegan eats PLUS some milk, eggs, cheese and a hamburger or two... how can that be LESS healthy than a vegan?

Oh...many many reasons. It is unhealthy to eat "a lot" in general, even if it is health food, regardless of whether it is omni or vegan. So if you say you will eat exactly what a healthy vegan eats, PLUS healthy omni meals on top of that, already by definition you are overeating. In fact a restricted calorie diet is the only proven dietary modification that prolongs lifespan. Higher intake of vegan foods + lower intake of meat has been linked to avoiding cancer, but the only proven method of prolonging lifespan is calorie restriction (not starvation, just restriction, so probably about 1200-1500 calories a day for your average adult).

Second, high dairy intake is linked to osteoporosis. This is pretty much indisputable and has been shown even by the dairy industries' own studies. High milk intake (I'm talking for adults here) puts you MORE at risk for bone decay, probably because of the high protein content of dairy (which also causes the calcium in dairy to be less absorbable than the calcium in vegan sources-- dandelion leaves have more **absorbable** calcium than does milk!). High milk intake is also linked to ovarian cancer.

Third: meat, no matter what the source (organic, factory, etc.) is loaded with cancer-causing free radicals. Barbecued meat even more so. Vegan foods are loaded with the OPPOSITE... antioxidants, which suppress free radical activity.

Keep in mind I am talking about ADULTS here... I believe that children do need milk (preferably human milk).

[Ygle]

Originally Posted by momtosimon

So if an omni is eating everything a vegan eats PLUS some milk, eggs, cheese and a hamburger or two... how can that be LESS healthy than a vegan?

Because, by eating higher up on the food chain you are feeding yourself higher concentrations of a variety of carcinogenic compounds. If you are nursing this is even *more* of a concern as shown by concentrations of various pesticides in breastmilk of vegans compared to non-vegans.

[meowee]

And to be clear... since the only nutrients not available in vegan foods are Vit D and B12, and since both Vit D and B12 are available in cow's milk and yogurt, barring a dairy allergy/ sensitivity, there is no strictly nutritional reason to eat meat.

[Individuation]

I read something recently in a wonderful New York Times Magazine article on food that claimed the healthiest diet was a lacto or lacto-ovo vegetarian, or "near-vegetarian/fliexitarian" one (which he defined as living as a vegetarian but with meat "a few times a year," which is where I stand), followed by completely vegan and then typical omnivore (eating somewhat healthy but lots of meat), trailed at dead last by the Standard American (processed, full of crap) diet.

I don't know his criteria, but that looked right to me from my experience.

I DO think veganism is a wonderful choice and that it can, if done carefully, be healthy. I even think the ethical issues trump minor health issues--I'll be a little anemic (or whatever) to not be the cause of suffering.

I just don't think I can make that decision for a little kid who, in my opinion and experience, needs more than a vegan diet can provide.

[melissa17s]

Individuation, do you know the name of the article or have a link?
Thanks

[holyhelianthus]

ditto to the link. i'm dieing to read it.

[meowee]

Originally Posted by Individuation

I read something recently in a wonderful New York Times Magazine article on food that claimed the healthiest diet was a lacto or lacto-ovo vegetarian, or "near-vegetarian/fliexitarian" one (which he defined as living as a vegetarian but with meat "a few times a year," which is where I stand), followed by completely vegan and then typical omnivore (eating somewhat healthy but lots of meat), trailed at dead last by the Standard American (processed, full of crap) diet.

I don't know his criteria, but that looked right to me from my experience.

I DO think veganism is a wonderful choice and that it can, if done carefully, be healthy. I even think the ethical issues trump minor health issues--I'll be a little anemic (or whatever) to not be the cause of suffering.

I just don't think I can make that decision for a little kid who, in my opinion and experience, needs more than a vegan diet can provide.

Was that the article that had the tagline something like, "What is the healthiest diet? Mostly plants, and not much" ? I remember reading that, and I believe the author mentioned calorie restriction and the carcinogenic nature of meat.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by meowee

The only two nutrients absent in vegan foods were b12 and vit D. Granted, both are very important, but you make it sound like it's a lot more than that.

Yes, it is a lot more: for instance, DHA and EPA. Also, meat is the richest source of the B vitamins and folic acid (best source: liver). Low intake of these nutrients raises levels of homocysteine.

Creatine, carnitine, and taurine are virtually non-existent in veggies. They are vital for energy production and healthy heart function.

Iron from meat is a superior source, and extremely bioavailable, too. Oh, and there's also zinc, vitamin K2, and CLA.

I feel like there may be more, but can't think of them at the moment. This short list will have to do for now.

[meowee]

google (with quotes) "unhappy meals"... don't search directly through the NYtimes or you'll get the for-pay archive service,

I don't know if this is what Individuation is referring to... it's by Michael Pollan.

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. I hate to give away the game right here at the beginning of a long essay, and I confess that I’m tempted to complicate matters in the interest of keeping things going for a few thousand more words. I’ll try to resist but will go ahead and add a couple more details to flesh out the advice. Like: A little meat won’t kill you, though it’s better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by magstphil

plants have a higher level of bioavailability for calcium then dairy just to name *one* example.

Hmm, I think that's debatable.

sure, veg*ns need to eat more of whatever plant or legume it is to get certain nutrients but thats not a bad thing especially when we take into account the adverse affects of eating excessive amounts of animal products- high cholesterol is the first thing that comes to mind.

For those who are sensitive to carbs, eating lots of legumes will not be a good thing.

As for the cholesterol problem—it has NOT been established that meat single-handedly raises cholesterol, not that I think high levels are automatically bad anyway.

Our paleolithic ancestors' diet contained 30 to 50% red meat. That may be why we have such a high requirement for carnitine, whose best food source is red meat.

[meowee]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

Yes, it is a lot more: for instance, DHA and EPA. Also, meat is the richest source of the B vitamins and folic acid (best source: liver). Low intake of these nutrients raises levels of homocysteine.

Flaxseed and rapeseed oil, and walnuts contain ALA which the body can use to synthesize DHA and EPA.

Folic Acid and B vitamins (except B12) are abundant in many vegan foods.

Iron from meat is a superior source, and extremely bioavailable, too. Oh, and there's also zinc, vitamin K2, and CLA.

How can you say meat is a superior source of iron when there are so many iron-rich vegan foods? Especially when the damaging effects of high meat intake are considered, it would seem that vegan sources of iron are "superior."

Zinc: beans, nuts, whole grains.

Many vegan foods are rich in Vit K.