This is an update of an article I published in 2011. I affirm that animal products are among the most nutrient-dense foods you can eat and that vegetarians and vegans are at risk for multiple nutrient deficiencies. I have included up-to-date research and expanded the list of nutrients that are often lacking in vegetarian and vegan diets.
Maybe you have considered going vegetarian or vegan for the health benefits. Or maybe you know someone who feels strongly about it as an ethical choice, and you wonder if they can really follow the diet in a healthy way. I respect these reasons and appreciate anyone who thinks deeply about the social and spiritual impact of their food choices—even if my own exploration of these questions has led me to a different answer.
But many choose a vegetarian diet because they’re under the impression that it’s a healthier choice from a nutritional perspective. It is this last reason that I’d like to address in this article. For the last 50-plus years, we’ve been told that meat, eggs, and animal fats are bad for us and that we’ll live longer and enjoy superior health if we minimize or avoid them. This idea has been so thoroughly drilled into our heads that few people even question it anymore. In fact, if you asked the average person on the street whether a vegetarian or vegan diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet, they’d probably say yes. But is this really true?
If You Want Nutrient-Dense Foods, You Need to Eat Animal Products
Plant-based diets emphasize vegetables, which are quite nutrient dense, and fruits, which are somewhat nutrient dense. They also typically include large amounts of cereal grains (refined and unrefined) and legumes, both of which are low in bioavailable nutrients and high in anti-nutrients like phytate. Most importantly, vegetarian and vegan diets eschew organ meats, other meats, and fish and shellfish, which are among the most nutrient-dense foods you can eat. (1)
Followers of vegetarian and vegan diets, beware: You could be missing out on B12, iron, calcium, and other key nutrients. Is it time to rethink your diet plan and add meat back to your plate? Find out. #nutrientdensefoods #paleocure.
Vegan diets, in particular, are almost completely devoid of certain nutrients that are crucial for physiological function. Deficiencies can take months or years to develop, and many are easily missed because they are not routinely tested for in primary care settings. Several studies have shown that both vegetarians and vegans are prone to deficiencies in:
- Vitamin B12
- Calcium
- Iron
- Zinc
- Long-chain fatty acids EPA and DHA
- Fat-soluble vitamins like A and D
Let’s take a closer look at each of these nutrients.
Vegetarian and Vegan Diets Don’t Provide Enough Vitamin B12
B12 deficiency is especially common in vegetarians and vegans. To properly evaluate B12 status, total serum vitamin B12 isn’t enough. A better marker for vitamin B12 is holotranscobalamin II, the biologically active fragment, which should be measured along with total homocysteine and methylmalonic acid. Low B12 is correlated with low holotranscobalamin II, while homocysteine and methylmalonic acid are usually increased in later stages of vitamin B12 deficiency. (2) The most recent studies using more sensitive techniques for detecting B12 deficiency have found that up to 77 percent of vegetarians and 92 percent of vegans are B12 deficient, compared to just 11 percent of omnivores. (3, 4, 5)
Vitamin B12 works together with folate in the synthesis of DNA and red blood cells. It’s also involved in the production of the myelin sheath around the nerves and the conduction of nerve impulses. B12 deficiency can cause numerous symptoms, including:
- Fatigue
- Lethargy
- Weakness
- Memory loss
- Neurological and psychiatric problems
- Anemia
- And much more …
It’s a common myth among vegetarians and vegans that it’s possible to get B12 from plant sources like:
- Seaweed
- Fermented soy
- Spirulina
- Brewer’s yeast
These plant foods don’t contain B12. They contain B12 analogs, called cobamides, that block the intake of—and increase the need for—true B12. (6) Researchers have identified purple laver nori (seaweed) as a plant source of bioavailable B12; however, it could contain high levels of cadmium and arsenic. (7, 8, 9, 10) More studies are needed, but there is a potentially serious problem with relying on purple laver nori for adequate B12.
If You’re Vegan, You Might Be Missing out on Calcium
You know that calcium is important for bone health, but did you know it’s essential for muscle and nerve function and that it’s involved in blood clotting? On paper, calcium intake is similar in vegetarians and omnivores (probably because both eat dairy products). Vegans, however, are often deficient. (11, 12, 13)
Calcium bioavailability from plant foods is affected by their levels of oxalate and phytate, which are inhibitors of calcium absorption and thus decrease the amount of calcium the body can extract from plant foods. (10) So while leafy greens like spinach and kale have a relatively high calcium content, the calcium is not efficiently absorbed during digestion.
One study suggests that it would take 16 servings of spinach to get the same amount of absorbable calcium as an eight-ounce glass of milk. (14) That would be 33 cups of baby spinach or around five or six cups of cooked spinach. There are a few vegetables listed in this paper that have higher levels of bioavailable calcium, but it’s important to note that all of the vegetables tested required multiple servings to achieve the same amount of usable calcium as one single serving of milk, cheese, or yogurt.
This suggests that trying to meet your daily calcium needs from plant foods alone might not be a great strategy. For those who don’t tolerate dairy well, fish with edible bones like sardines are great sources of calcium on a Paleo diet.
You’re Also More Likely to Be Iron-Deficient on a Plant-Based Diet
Vegetarians and omnivores often have similar levels of serum iron, but levels of ferritin—the long-term storage form of iron—are lower in vegetarians than in omnivores. (15, 16) This is significant, because ferritin depletion is the first stage of iron deficiency.
For example, this study of 75 vegan women in Germany found that 40 percent of them were iron deficient, despite average iron intakes that were above the recommended daily allowance. (17) Among Australian men, iron intake among vegetarians and vegans was 29 to 49 percent higher than omnivores, but their serum ferritin concentrations were barely half that of omnivores. (18) Despite similar iron intakes, another study published this year showed vegans and female vegetarians having low ferritin levels. (19)
Why would this be? As with calcium, the bioavailability of the iron in plant foods (nonheme iron) is much lower than in animal foods (heme iron). Plant-based forms of iron are also inhibited by other commonly consumed substances, such as:
- Coffee
- Tea
- Dairy products
- Supplemental fiber
- Supplemental calcium
This explains why vegetarian diets have been shown to reduce nonheme iron absorption by 70 percent and total iron absorption by 85 percent. (20, 21)
Red Meat, Fish, and Poultry Are Your Best Sources for Zinc
Zinc is important for the immune system, cell growth, and wound healing. You won’t usually see overt zinc deficiency in Western vegetarians, but their intake often falls below recommendations, probably because red meat, poultry, and fish are the best sources.
This is another case where bioavailability is important; many plant foods that contain zinc also contain phytate, which inhibits zinc absorption. Vegetarian diets tend to reduce zinc absorption by about 35 percent compared with an omnivorous diet. (22) Thus, even when the diet meets or exceeds the RDA for zinc, deficiency may still occur. (23) One study suggested that vegetarians may require up to 50 percent more zinc than omnivores for this reason. (24) A meta-analysis of 34 studies found that both zinc intakes and serum zinc concentrations were lower in vegetarians than non-vegetarians. (25)
You Might Be Missing out on the Benefits of Essential Fatty Acids
Plant foods do contain linoleic acid (omega-6) and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA, omega-3), both of which are considered essential fatty acids. In this context, an essential fatty acid is one that can’t be synthesized by the body and must be obtained in the diet. However, an increasing body of research has highlighted the benefits of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. These fatty acids play a protective and therapeutic role in a wide range of diseases: (26, 27)
- Cancer
- Asthma
- Depression
- Alzheimer’s disease
- Cardiovascular disease
- ADHD
- Autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis
While it is possible for some ALA from plant foods to be converted into EPA and DHA, that conversion is poor in humans: between 5 and 10 percent for EPA and 2 and 5 percent for DHA. (28)
Although no official recommendation exists, the daily suggested intake of combined DHA and EPA is around 250 to 500 mg. In theory, this means vegans and vegetarians would need to consume between five and 12.5 grams of ALA per day to obtain 250 mg of DHA. In reality, vegetarians and vegans consume merely 0.97 g/day and 0.86 g/day of ALA, respectively, according to a study of over 14,000 Americans. (29)
Vegetarians have 30 percent lower levels of EPA and DHA than omnivores, while vegans have 50 percent lower EPA and nearly 60 percent lower DHA. (30, 31) Moreover, the conversion of ALA to DHA depends on zinc, iron, selenium, and pyridoxine—nutrients that vegetarians and vegans are less likely than omnivores to get enough of. (32, 33, 34, 35) Eating 12 to 16 ounces of cold-water fatty fish per week remains the best way to get adequate EPA and DHA. The fish will also provide bioavailable protein and selenium.
Vitamins A and D: What You’re Missing
Fat-soluble vitamins play numerous and critical roles in human health. Vitamin A promotes healthy immune function, fertility, eyesight, and skin. Vitamin D regulates calcium metabolism, regulates immune function, reduces inflammation, and protects against some forms of cancer.
These important fat-soluble vitamins are concentrated, and in some cases found almost exclusively, in animal foods like:
- Seafood
- Organ meats
- Eggs
- Dairy products
Some obscure species of mushrooms can provide large amounts of vitamin D, but these mushrooms are rarely consumed and often difficult to obtain. This explains why vitamin D levels are often low in vegetarians and even lower in vegans. (36, 37, 38, 39)
The idea that plant foods contain vitamin A is a common misconception. Plants contain beta-carotene, the precursor to active vitamin A (retinol). While beta-carotene is converted into vitamin A in humans, the conversion is inefficient. (40, 41) For example, a single serving of liver per week would meet the RDA of 3,000 IU. To get the same amount from plant foods, you’d have to eat two cups of carrots, one cup of sweet potatoes, or two cups of kale every day.
Moreover, traditional cultures consumed up to 10 times the current RDA for vitamin A. It would be nearly impossible to get this amount of vitamin A from plant foods without juicing or taking supplements. And if supplements aren’t consumed with a fatty meal, the actual absorption will be low. (42)
Like what you’re reading? Get my free newsletter, recipes, eBooks, product recommendations, and more!
Vegans and Vegetarians, You Could Be Missing These Key Nutrients
If you don’t eat meat or other animal products, you could also be missing out on:
- Choline
- Creatine
- Taurine
- Methionine
- Glycine
- Selenium
Choline
Vegetarian and vegan diets, along with the Standard American Diet, pose risks of choline deficiency. (43) Choline is required for:
- Healthy cell membrane function
- Methylation
- Cognitive development in children
It’s so important that the FDA recently set a daily recommended intake of 550 mg for men and 425 mg for women, which should increase to 450 mg during pregnancy and 550 mg during breastfeeding. Recent research suggests that only 8.5 percent of women meet the daily choline requirement. (44) With egg yolks and organ meats as the most potent sources of choline, it’s not surprising that even omnivores are not getting enough. This is another reason I encourage giving organ meat dishes another try.
Creatine
Creatine plasma and muscle levels are usually lower in vegetarians than in omnivores, as meat provides the richest source of creatine. (45) Creatine may play an important role in cognitive function. A randomized controlled trial found that six weeks of oral creatine supplementation significantly improved vegetarians’ performance on tests of fluid intelligence and working memory. The difference in scores between groups was enormous. (46)
Another study found that creatine supplementation in vegetarians improved memory, while having no effect on fluid intelligence or working memory in meat-eaters. (47) These results suggest that vegetarians’ baseline scores may have been impaired due to low creatine intake.
Taurine
Taurine has a central role as a neurotransmitter, promotes the development of the central nervous system, and upholds the structure of cell membranes. Although the body can synthesize small amounts of taurine, vegetarians and vegans often still have low plasma and urinary taurine levels because taurine is found primarily in animal products. (48, 49) Low plasma taurine in newborns is associated with lower scores on mental development and arithmetic tests at age seven, suggesting that dietary taurine aids in neural development. (50)
Methionine
Methionine is another amino acid that is restricted on a plant-based diet. Low methionine intake has been linked to longevity in scientific research. However, methionine is still an essential amino acid, and too little methionine may impair detoxification and reduce fertility. (51, 52) After being activated using ATP, methionine becomes the universal methyl donor.
On the flip side, too much methionine can also pose problems. After methyl donation, methionine becomes homocysteine and must be recycled back to methionine by B12, folate, or betaine (derived from choline). Because meat is high in methionine, diets heavy in muscle meats but low in connective tissues can result in increased homocysteine levels, a risk factor for CVD.
That said, studies have shown that vegetarians and vegans have significantly higher homocysteine levels on average than omnivores. (53) In one study, the average homocysteine level among vegetarians was 13.9 nmol/L and among vegans, 16.4 nmol/L, compared to 11.3 nmol/L for omnivores. (54) This puts most vegetarians and vegans in a range that carries significant risk of CVD. In fact, according to one study, the prevalence of hyperhomocysteinemia among vegetarians may actually be higher than that among non-vegetarians already diagnosed with heart disease. (55)
Glycine
Vegetarians and vegans don’t consume as much glycine as meat-eaters, as the richest sources are the “odd bits” of animal foods, like: (56)
- Skin
- Bones
- Collagen
- Gelatin
Glycine is one of the building blocks of collagen, found in our connective tissues. In addition to its structural role, glycine can also act as a neurotransmitter, plays a role in blood sugar regulation, and stimulates the production of glutathione, the body’s master antioxidant. (57, 58, 59, 60)
Some Paleo dieters can be susceptible to low glycine intake, too, if they are eating tons of muscle meat and ignoring the “nose-to-tail” philosophy. Glycine helps balance out methionine levels, in part by acting as a buffer for excess methyl groups. Low choline and glycine intake, common in vegetarians and vegans, can further contribute to high homocysteine levels and increased risk of CVD. Eating bone broth regularly can help balance glycine/methionine levels.
Selenium
While a few studies show no difference in selenium status among diet types, most research shows lower intake and/or levels in vegetarians and vegans compared to omnivores, including one study that measured glutathione peroxidase, a selenium-dependent enzyme and an excellent marker of active selenium status. (61, 62, 63, 64) Selenium has a role in immune function, supports thyroid hormone synthesis, and protects the thyroid from excess iodine damage. (65, 66) Selenium also helps prevent mercury toxicity. (67)
Selenium deficiency is also common in those with digestive health issues like Crohn’s disease or celiac disease. (68, 69) The best sources of selenium include:
- Brazil nuts
- Crimini mushrooms
- Some sea foods
- Chicken
- Eggs
- Lamb
- Turkey
Better supplementation. Fewer supplements.
Close the nutrient gap to feel and perform your best.
A daily stack of supplements designed to meet your most critical needs.

Eating Animal Products Could Also Help Your Thyroid Health
Thyroid hormone synthesis requires iodine, a nutrient that can be lacking from omnivore and plant-based diets alike. Most iodine comes from the sea; the soil—and therefore vegetables grown in soil—usually contains very little. In a typical mixed diet, the highest sources of iodine are iodized salt and animal products like:
- Dairy products
- Eggs
- Seafood
Vegetarians and vegans are at risk for low iodine intake. (70)
In the Boston area, urinary iodine levels in vegans were barely half that of vegetarians, and vegans were at high risk of iodine deficiency. (71) Several studies of Scandinavian populations confirm that vegans finished last in iodine intake and/or urinary iodine levels. (72, 73, 74) To make matters worse, isoflavones found in soy products, which are sometimes consumed in large quantities in vegan and vegetarian diets, may exacerbate iodine deficiency and hypothyroidism. (75)
But even those following a Paleo template can be at risk for iodine deficiency if they are not regularly consuming seafood. (76) Sea vegetables, especially kelp, are the highest sources of iodine ounce for ounce.
Your Kids Need Nutrient-Dense Foods to Thrive
Because of the prevailing idea in our culture that vegetarian and vegan diets are healthy, more and more children are being raised from birth (and even from conception!) on meat-free diets. Both the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) and USDA have said that vegetarian and vegan diets are safe during pregnancy, but critical analyses by several researchers have questioned whether these recommendations are based on sufficient evidence. One review remarked that “the evidence on vegan–vegetarian diets in pregnancy is heterogeneous and scant,” suggesting that more research is needed to answer the question of whether they are, in fact, safe during pregnancy. (77)
Vegetarian and vegan diets for children carry significant risks of nutrient deficiencies that can have dire health consequences. (78, 79, 80)
Studies have shown that kids raised until age six on a vegan diet are still B12 deficient years after adding at least some animal products to their diet. One study found an association between B12 status and measures of intelligence and memory, with formerly vegan kids scoring lower than omnivorous kids. (81) Devastating case studies have reported B12 deficiency in young vegan children that have led to neurological damage and developmental delays. (82, 83)
Low nutrient intake extends beyond vitamin B12. Other case studies have attributed hypothyroidism in young children to a maternal and/or childhood vegan diet. (84, 85) Compared to omnivores, breast milk from vegan mothers had lower levels of DHA and EPA, which are vital for brain development, especially in the first year of life, when a baby’s brain literally doubles in size. (83) In short, just like adults, children on vegetarian and vegan diets often have lower intakes of iron, iodine, vitamin A, zinc, and more.
Your Best Choice for Optimal Nutrition Isn’t a Vegetarian or Vegan Diet, but a Paleo Template
With care and attention, I think it’s possible to meet most of your nutrient needs with a vegetarian diet that includes liberal amounts of pasture-raised, full-fat dairy and eggs, with one exception: EPA and DHA. These long-chain omega fats are found exclusively in marine algae and fish and shellfish, so the only way to get them on a vegetarian diet would be to take a microalgae supplement or bend the rules and take fish oil or cod liver oil as a supplement. (86) Still, while it may be possible to obtain adequate nutrition on a vegetarian diet, it is not optimal—as the research above indicates.
I don’t think it’s possible to meet nutrient needs on a vegan diet without supplements—and quite a few of them. Vegan diets are low in:
- B12
- Bioavailable iron and zinc
- Choline
- Vitamins A and D
- Calcium
- EPA and DHA
It’s worth pointing out that there are genetic differences that affect the conversion of certain nutrient precursors (like beta-carotene and alpha-linolenic acid) into the active forms of those nutrients (like retinol and EPA and DHA, respectively), and these differences may affect how long someone will be able to follow a vegetarian or vegan diet before they develop nutrient deficiencies. This explains why some people seem to do well for years on these diets, while others develop problems very quickly.
Is It Time to Rethink Your Diet?
From an evolutionary perspective, is difficult to justify a diet with low levels of several nutrients critical to human function. While it may be possible to address these shortcomings through targeted supplementation (an issue that is still debated), it makes far more sense to meet your nutritional needs from food.
This is especially important for children, who are still developing and are even more sensitive to suboptimal intake of the nutrients discussed in this article. Like all parents, vegetarians and vegans want the best for their children. Unfortunately, many are not aware of the potential for nutrient deficiencies posed by their dietary choices.
I hope this article can serve as a resource for anyone on a plant-based diet, whether they choose to start eating meat (or animal products, in the case of vegans) again or not.

I believe the most interesting thing about this article is when he mentions the genetic precursors for certain individuals to convert plant based vitamin sources more efficiently then others. This brings up an important point which isn’t mentioned here, what if there is no “better diet”, what if it just depends on each persons individual makeup? Some people tolerate being vegan/vegetarian while others don’t…what if we just left it up for the individual to decide? I know for myself that without ALOT of protein, I get depressed, lethargic and tired. I understand being vegetarian and vegan to try to positively impact the world, but my functioning was so decreased while I was vegetarian I couldn’t really be of any help or service to anyone…not even myself. Maybe I didn’t do it right, maybe I’ll try it again in the future, but for now for some reason I have an intuition that for my body, eating animals and animal products in a balanced way feels right (although I believe dairy products can cause inflammation for people with health problems). Instead of debating this with me, lets focus on what we know and have in common. Increasing vegetable intake is a complete no brainer for better health. Let’s spread the truth that processed foods, sugary foods, GMO’s, and pesticides are terrible for us and the environment. Let’s treat animals with respect and have them graze on open pasteur, eating their natural diet, free from slaughterhouses, confinement, antibiotics and hormones. We are being so unproductive by arguing!
Thanks for the well thought out article, Chris. There is an interesting response to it at https://www.theveganrd.com. I think it would be wonderful if you responded to Ms. Messina’s points , in order to continue a fact-based discussion of this important topic.
I don’t know why people think everything has to be so cookie-cutter. I personally am a vegan and have been one for over a year and have had nothing but great benefit from it. It is RARE that I consume soy products or gluten grains, and grains in general are certainly not a staple in my diet (except perhaps quinoa).
I had a B12 deficiency BEFORE I became a vegan, back when I was regularly eating meat and dairy. According to my doctor, some people simply do not absorb it through animal products and require a supplement, and she said I was one of those people.
There is not one diet that is perfect for everyone. If there was, we wouldn’t need all the glorious food variety and options that we have. I am a vegan and love being vegan, but that does not mean it is the right diet for everyone. As such, I don’t try to push my belief system on others or tell them that their diet will lead to bad health (unless, of course, they are living on a diet of fast food and processed meats and grains!)
I believe that no matter what diet or lifestyle you choose to follow, you need to do your research and be aware of the potential pitfalls.
No matter what, we’re all trying to be healthy here and we care about what we put in our bodies. That’s (unfortunately) a lot more than most of America can say. So let’s encourage each other and build each other up, not fight over whose diet is better! 🙂
It’s not that vegans think people who eat meat are “meanies”, Colin. If you turn you thoughts to slavery for a moment you will realize that there were some people called abolitionists who felt that until slavery was ended in this country nothing that was built on it was right and business could not proceed as usual. Then there were the majority of people who argued pro and con based on their own cost/benefit ratio or simply whether it was what they were used to and comfortable with and couldn’t really consider any other way. You no doubt have a sense of the years and violence that went into changing the conversation and the reality on the ground.
There are people now who have the same view of the use and abuse of animals, who are innocent equal creatures and not made for man’s use, as slaves were not made for other men’s use. You can pull out the Bible, as people did then, to justify how black men were born to be slaves, as sons of Ham, and some probably still would argue a mistake was made in ending it, as people do to justify animal use, however it’s rather more than “meanies” who stood against slavery. If you can shift your context you can get a sense of what animal abolitionists are trying to convey. I have no doubt the battle will be as pitched as it was against human slavery, but also that in the long run the expansive moral arc of the universe tends toward the good (paraphrase) and for many reasons our direct use and abuse of animals must wane, especially in countries where this is not based on starvation need. Personally my line is drawn at if you own a cow and it has a calf and there’s some milk left over, go ahead and make cheese. I’m talking about factory farming primarily because of the scope, farming for fur, canned hunts, puppy mills, etc. Abusive use for personal gain.
“I’m talking about factory farming primarily because of the scope, farming for fur, canned hunts, puppy mills, etc. Abusive use for personal gain.”
None of which are defended on this thread.
In fact, almost everyone on this thread has gone out of his/her way to talk about just how horrific those things are, despite the fact that that is NOT the focus of the article.
Perhaps because you are relatively new to these realities, you assume that we are too. I’ve watched the videos and been to the stockyards, Erica. I’ve taken pictures of “battery hens”. I’ve personally cleaned up pigs and rescued chickens. I know what is going on.
As does (almost) every other person on this thread. We have consistently decried those things. So if you think that informing us that “meat eater=me and vegan=holistic” adds anything of substance to the conversation, then you are deeply misguided.
If, however, you have a plan of how to create a sustainable veganic agricultural system, I think that many of us would love to hear it.
I don’t see anyone here promoting factory farming.. quite the opposite in fact. So I suspect you are presenting a false dichotomy. Again trying to make this an emotion-charged discussion rather than rational reasoning.
So maybe try setting that aside for now and accept that many (most… all?) here agree that: the current system of abusive, cruel, unjustified and unsustainable factory farming (plus vast crop mono-culture) has to change?
In terms of all animals (including humans?) being “innocent equal creatures” where do you draw the line?
Mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, microbes…? What about 1,000 year old giant sequoia trees?
ALL life on this planet (so far as is currently known) comes from the same common ancestor — animals AND plants.
I watched a show about Wales yesterday, where they showed a Yew tree in a Conwy graveyard that has been aged at 4,500 years.. it was growing when Stonehenge was being built and is still alive today!
I’ve also seen comments here about “minimizing harm” and that plants have no complex nervous system – like we do.
Key phrase that “like we do”…
Is that how we decide which life we need to borrow so that we can continue on for a while, until our life goes back into the general pool? Base it on anthropomorphic methods of deciding sentience, or value?
Sources have already been offered showing the growing field (hah) of research into how plants “sense” and interact or “behave” with their environment.. in many ways along the same lines as animals do… hardly surprising as we share a common ancestor.
@ Erica: Care to tell a black person to their face what you just told me? I’d love to see that go down. Evoking images of slavery just so you can gain the moral highground in a discussion about food is pretty ridiculous.
Also, you act like omnivores (btw, you’re an omnivore, too. you’re just living against your nature) hate animals and love to see them suffer…..or that we’re too ignorant and if only we had people like you to shame us into accepting your worldview. Grow up.
Many black vegans do compare the farming of animals to slavery. And I know a Holocaust survivor who sees similarities between it and the Holocaust. Don’t assume everyone feels a certain way about the use of a word based on their heritage.
Being omnivorous means we *can* eat just about anything. It doesn’t mean we have to. or even that we should.
Basically the only reasons to go vegetarian or vegan is because of ethical reasons….or maybe the idea of eating meat turns your stomach. The health argument has never held water with me. Also, the dirty little secret of veganism is that many people (usually young females) are drawn to because it easily covers up their eating disorder.
Here’s an anecdote….I knew this girl who was normal and well-adjusted and then she became a radical vegan and now she thinks she’s a transsexual cat named George. I’m not kidding. Vitamin deficiencies are no joke. They can literally drive you crazy.
https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/03/animal-protein-as-bad-as-smoking/
“Call me suspicious, but I always check for conflicts of interest and the lead researcher, Dr Longo, has declared interests in (actually, he’s the founder of) L-Nutra – a company that makes ProLon™ – an entirely plant based meal replacement product.”
And it was not just Valter D. Longo but three others of the authors (Sebastian Brandhorst, Priya Balasubramanian and Luigi Fontana) also working for L-Nutra…
https://www.l-nutra.com/index.php/about/team
And what about our oceans?
https://n.pr/1eI48ua
https://youtu.be/Bo_f8mV5khg (beautiful interlude amongst all the brain work)
And:
Worldwide, over 25% of all the world’s fish stocks are either overfished or depleted.
Another 52% are fully exploited.
(Fully exploited: the number of fish taken out equals the number being born; Any further increase in fish caught will lead to overfishing, and then to collapse.)
Fish farming is not a viable solution.
*Above stats from State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) can be found on https://www.fao.org/sof/sofia/index_en.htm
I just don’t need to eat fish/seafood/fish oil – this is just my personal choice. I know and love people who do but even they eat less than before.
https://www.naturaleater.com/science-articles/Paleolithic-Nutrition-Twenty-Five%20Years-Later-Eaton.pdf
“Reduction of carbohydrates to extremely low levels is not consistent with the HG model, but neither is a very high CHO, “meat as a condiment”–type diet; furthermore, CHO sources are important. HG CHO came from fruit, vegetables, and nuts, not from grains. Refined, concentrated CHOs such as sucrose played virtually no role, and the consumption of plant CHO necessarily resulted in high fiber intake. If we were to rebuild the food pyramid along HG lines, the base would not be grains but fruits and vegetables, which could be chosen to provide adequate fiber content. The second tier would be meat, fish, and low-fat dairy products, all very lean. Whole grains might come next (although even these were very unusual for HGs), whereas fats, oils, and refined carbohydrates would occupy the same very small place at the top, essentially functioning as condiments in a healthy diet. These guidelines would not exactly replicate the HG diet in terms of food categories, but it would do so roughly in terms of macronutrients.”
SO — all hunter gatherers around the globe ate the same things??? Not likely
That’s what Melvin Konner, MD, PhD and S. Boyd Eaton, MD say in the article
Read it and offer criticism of their methods
“Read it and offer criticism of their methods”
It is obvious that not all geographic regions of the world offer the same food resources.
I prefer to think for myself, rather than unquestioningly accept the word of “experts”.
https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/03/animal-protein-as-bad-as-smoking/
For example…
>>Association between protein and mortality
This is a direct quotation from the article (my emphasis): “Using Cox Proportional Hazard models, we found that high and moderate protein consumption were positively associated with diabetes-related mortality, but not associated with all-cause, CVD [cardiovascular], or cancer mortality when subjects at all the ages above 50 were considered.”
i.e. when we looked at the 6,381 over 50 year olds there was not even an association with protein intake and all-cause mortality, or CVD mortality, or cancer mortality.
There was a relationship with diabetes mortality and protein intake, but the numbers were so tiny (one death from diabetes in one group) that this was not considered important.
And that could have been the headline – “There is no association between protein intake and mortality” – but then there would be no headline. <<
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dmrr.2519/full
Ma-Pi 2 macrobiotic diet and type 2 diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis of short-term intervention studies
https://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/01/nurtrion-news-quicky-energy-reduction.html
As you can see if you take a look at the typical diet composition of the subjects in the first, prospective trial (Porrata. 2009; see Table 2), the “macrobiotic” intervention was exclusively food based. It was composed of 40–50% whole grains (rice, millet and barley), 30–40% vegetables (carrots, kale, cabbage, broccoli, chicory, onions, red and white radish, parsley), and 8% legumes (adzuki beans, chickpeas, lentils, black beans), plus gomashio (roasted ground sesame seeds with unrefined sea salt), fermented products (miso, tamari, umeboshi) and seaweeds (kombu, wakame, nori).
Bancha tea (tannin-free green tea) was the main source of liquid. The food intake was measured using the weight method for 7 consecutive days in the 2nd and 4th months of the intervention. The same goes for the compliance with the recommended (100% idiotic) macronutrient composition, according to which the subjects had to consume 15%, 20% and 65% of total energy in form protein, fat and carbohydrates, respectively.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/?report=classic
Conclusion
A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.
Discussion
In our two cohorts of U.S. men and women with up to 20-26 years of follow-up, we observed that the overall low-carbohydrate diet score was only weakly associated with all-cause mortality. However, a higher animal low-carbohydrate diet score was associated with higher all-cause and cancer mortality, while a higher vegetable low-carbohydrate score was associated with lower mortality, particularly CVD mortality.
Low-carbohydrate diets from animal and vegetable sources may have similar major macronutrient content, but the source of the macronutrients can result in large differences in dietary components that may affect mortality, such as specific fatty acids, protein, fiber, vitamins and minerals, and phytochemicals. Therefore, the associations that we observed are more likely to be mediated by these bioactive components rather the carbohydrate content.
In conclusion, consumption of a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet were associated with a lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality whereas a high scores for the animal-based low-carbohydrate diet were associated with a higher risk of overall mortality. These results suggest that the health effects of a low-carbohydrate diet may depend on the type of protein and fat, and that a diet including mostly vegetable sources of protein and fat is preferable to a diet with mostly animal sources of protein and fat.
Dr. McDougall Criticizes Low-carb Diets (And Tells Why the Rice Diet Is Best)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOfF_r2R8QM
Published on Feb 26, 2014
Dr. John McDougall presents The Ultimate Diet Therapy at the February, 2014, Advanced Study Weekend and the Flamingo Resort in Santa Rosa, California.
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2814%2900062-X#Summary
Notably, our results showed that the amount of proteins derived from animal sources accounted for a significant proportion of the association between overall protein intake and all-cause and cancer mortality. These results are in agreement with recent findings on the association between red meat consumption and death from all-cause and cancer (Fung et al., 2010,Pan et al., 2012). Previous studies in the U.S. have found that a low carbohydrate diet is associated with an increase in overall mortality and showed that when such a diet is from animal-based products, the risk of overall as well as cancer mortality is increased even further (Fung et al., 2010,Lagiou et al., 2007). Our study indicates that high levels of animal proteins, promoting increases in IGF-1 and possibly insulin, is one of the major promoters of mortality for people age 50–65 in the 18 years following the survey assessing protein intake.
Although protein intake is associated with increased mortality for adults who were middle-aged at baseline, there was also evidence that a low protein diet may be hazardous for older adults. Both high and moderate protein intake in the elderly were associated with reduced mortality compared to that in the low protein group, suggesting that protein intake representing at least 10% of the calories consumed may be necessary after age 65 to reduce age-dependent weight loss and prevent an excessive loss of IGF-1 and of other important factors. In fact, previous studies have noted that an increased protein intake and the resulting increase in IGF-1 may prove beneficial in older adults (Heaney et al., 1999), and the switch from the protective to the detrimental effect of the low protein diet coincides with a time at which weight begins to decline. Based on previous longitudinal studies, weight tends to increase up until age 50–60, at which point it becomes stable before beginning to decline steadily by an average of 0.5% per year for those over age 65 (Villareal et al., 2005,Wallace et al., 1995). We speculate that frail subjects who have lost a significant percentage of their body weight and have a low BMI may be more susceptible to protein malnourishment. It is also possible that other factors such as inflammation or genetic factors may contribute to the sensitivity to protein restriction in elderly subjects, in agreement with our mouse studies.
In agreement with other epidemiological and animal studies (Estruch et al., 2013,Linos and Willett, 2007,Michaud et al., 2001,Willett, 2006), our findings suggest that a diet in which plant-based nutrients represent the majority of the food intake is likely to maximize health benefits in all age groups. However, we propose that up to age 65 and possibly 70, depending on health status, the 0.7 to 0.8 g of proteins/kg of body weight/day reported by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, currently viewed as a minimum requirement, should be recommended instead of the 1.0–1.3 g grams of proteins/kg of body weight/day consumed by adults ages 19–70 (Fulgoni, 2008). We also propose that at older ages, it may be important to avoid low protein intake and gradually adopt a moderate to high protein, preferably mostly plant-based consumption to allow the maintenance of a healthy weight and protection from frailty (Bartali et al., 2006,Ferrucci et al., 2003,Kobayashi et al., 2013).
Of mice and men… LOL
“Here, we combined an epidemiological study of 6,381 US men and women aged 50 and above from NHANES III, the only nationally representative dietary survey in the United States, with mouse and cellular studies to understand the link between the level and source of proteins and amino acids, aging, diseases, and mortality.”
Study says “dietary survey”… so NOT an RCT then…? I thought you subscribed to higher standards of research Charles?
Telegraph article says “Nutritional advice has traditionally focused on cutting down on fat, sugar and salt. The World Health Organisation will announce a consultation today suggesting that guidelines on sugar consumption should be lowered, but there have few warnings about excess protein.”
Call me skeptical but the timing of this report could not be better from the point of view of those with a ve$ted interest in the current $tatus quo
“The study population included 6,381 adults ages 50 and over from NHANES III, a nationally representative, cross-sectional study. Our analytic sample had a mean age of 65 years and is representative of the United States population in ethnicity, education, and health characteristics (Table S1).
On average, subjects consumed 1,823 calories, of which the majority came from carbohydrates (51%), followed by fat (33%) and protein (16%), with most of it (11%) derived from animal protein.”
51% of energy from carbs… but no question it’s the protein that’s doin’ ’em in!
These comments by Professor Sanders are helpful. It seems remarkable that the study would not control for variables such as smoking.
Prof Tom Sanders, Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, King’s College London, said:
“The headline of the press release from the University of Southern California is running ahead of the evidence, and the comparison with smoking is really unwarranted in terms of the relative risks and the certainty of the adverse effects of smoking. The study shows a relationship with growth factor IGF-1 and cancer risk which is already known. However, the relationship between IGF-1 levels and protein intake is far more tenuous in humans. Cross-sectional data i.e. omnivores vs vegans suggest animal protein to be associated with increased IGF-1 levels but there is a lack of evidence from controlled feed studies to show that IGF-1 levels fall when animal protein intake is restricted. Much of the supporting work is based on studies in mice not humans. Dietary guidelines should not be based on animal experiments.
“Although the follow-up on the NHANES survey* shows that those with the highest reported protein intake were at greater risk of all-cause mortality, it fails to adjust for other confounding factors such as socioeconomic status, smoking, and obesity. The sample size is also modest at 6381, compared with over 448,568 in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer which only found a weak association (14% increase in risk of mortality with red meat consumption, which was more consistent for processed meat (11% increase in risk)). The European data suggest a much smaller effect than the 74% increased risk claimed in this paper.
“Also, the study does not control for the overall balance of the diet. People who eat large amounts of animal proteins often have other aspects of their diet which are imbalanced such as low intakes of fruit and vegetables. I think the next step would be to show that changing protein intake in the range of normal human intakes influences IGF-1 levels. IGF-1 levels may well be programmed in early development and dietary protein intake in adult life may well be less important in later life. This would be consistent with the observation that accelerated growth in childhood is associated with increased height and a high risk of cancer in later life.”
Paul – I just want to say I respect your point of view and your actions and out of the hundreds of comments here it is the only one I’ve seen that balances the two sides. I’m tending towards being an ethical vegan based on the fact that the meat I would eat would all be CAFO, or “happy” grass with CAFO slaughter. Many people aren’t at the point where they can really sort these issues appropriately onto a continuum and integrate them into
a logical framework. If you’ve made the leap to ethical veganism you are past the point where supplementing with B12 is going to move you. If you eat meat ethics hasn’t really occurred to you as the issue, and the conversation has been only about personal micronutrient one-upmanship. Personally I respect your decision to hunt if you want to eat meat – it’s healthier meat – and you are owning your own actions. The largest issue with CAFO’s is not that man ate meat in the past, or that animals kill each other in the wild – the largest issues are the violence, the slavery and abuse, and the misuse of antibiotics secondarily to that violence – nothing you couldn’t tell me as well.
FrankG – you have been trolling this discussion since Day 1, for several weeks now, trying to incite anyone you can get a hold of to argue with you. Funny quote for you “Who knew that we’d be holding a device that had the information of the world at our fingertips and we’d use it to look at pictures of cats and to argue with strangers.” Don’t respond. I’m done.
And yet you failed to answer any of the direct question put to you… while you persistently misrepresent the views of those you colour as “the other side”.
My choices are not simply based on what is best for my own health, or my nutrient choices… I take a much wider and dare I say ethical view, of my carefully considered decisions.
Just a thought or more like a nightmare I’ve had for years. You are familiar with CAFOs…so if you took that to its ultimate conclusion I can see a system that produces boxed meat. Its not a sentient animal starting out on a farm eating grass but starts in box with input hoses for nutrients and output hoses for waist. They are all stackable. They all start the same…Pork, beef, or chicken is selected in the control room via algorithm that reads the market demand. At maturity the hoses are taken off and a fork truck picks up pallets or tons of meat ready to be sliced in your kitchen.
Ok, I want off the planet now.
The problem i see with almost all young vegetarians that I know, their practice is to just take out meat and other animal products. That leaves a huge and dangerous hole in their diets. Cheese pizza, pizza roles, and cheese Mac is not good vegetarian practice. They just eat junk. They don’t know how to cook and they are too busy to study the practice correctly.
They have vague, fuzzy and not well developed ideas on virtue and health and they settle into eating highly processed garbage.
The way I see it, the only real reason to go Veg is spiritual, and that in and of itself is legitimate. Animal compassion is part of human nature and is again legitimate. I bow to and honor vegetarianism. However I am an omnivore. I hunt dear. I thought that if I was going to continue being one I should have the knowledge, skill, and spiritual nuts to kill my own food. How many omnivores kill or witness the killing of animals for food? I will not criticize vegetarians.
However we are “trapped” in a paleo body and we have to make choices.
I was on the bubble until I read Michael pollan’s book ” The Omnivores Dilemma”. He talks about this, but my takeaway was the aspect of the kill. My deer are wild animals and I practice “fair chase” and I do not kill unless it is as clean and swift as possible. I can pass if need be. I know a vegetarian may not understand this…it’s still killing, but Pollan has a proper (for me anyway) take on this, which is to say that killing a wild animal through fair-chase is as about as “good” as it gets when com paired to the CAFO system and if I remain a meat eater then I need to do it myself if I can. I will say that it is not easy for those of us that are not deluded.
I have a real concern that, Based upon Pollan’s book the Paleo movement how are we to sustain omnivoreism and do it correctly. I can not even get grass-beef locally, and how long will the fisheries last if everyone went back to our paleo roots? CAFO animal systems make meat cheap and plentiful but is it worth eating and it’s harming our bodies and the planet. The planet can not afford the acreage it takes to grass raise animals. Vegetarianism is at least more sustainable in the medium run until CAFO style plant factories start pumping out lousy veggies. What can sustain seven billion humans?
“The planet can not afford the acreage it takes to grass raise animals.”
Much grazing-land worldwide is not suitable for any other kind of agriculture, and raising livestock on pasture (or even very poor land) adds to the topsoil in a sustainable way; as opposed to growing plants which depletes the soil.
I do fear that there are just too many humans on the planet but I don’t see this as an issue of rearing animals but rather the senseless and greedy waste of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels; which currently, artificially buoy up an unsustainable system. In this latter regard, the vast mono-cultures of crops are just as much a problem as the CAFOs
I do applaud your attitude to hunting and can personally relate. I think that being in touch with my true human nature and recognising my place in the ecosystem is essential to our future survival. I do not think that killing and eating animals is in any way hypocritical.. quite the opposite in fact.
Regardless of how we do it, we need to look at more options not previously considered. We have a very narrow plant/animal food inventory. You can’t raise enough grass-beef…the quality requirements for grass are much too stringent if we want to convert it into quality human nutrition. Same for plant based systems.
Monsanto moves in and either steals the gene pool or wipes it out in order to sell their own gene pool. Every corner of the globe will need to supply indigenous food on every acre it will grow on, problem is, free market globalization may not support that kind of cultural autonomy.
In the long run we may have to loose our love for food as a passion. In order to feed billions of people we will need frankenfoods.
“…the quality requirements for grass are much too stringent if we want to convert it into quality human nutrition.”
On the contrary, herbivores are far more efficient at turning poor soil and what grows in it, into quality human nutrition (while simultaneously improving that soil for sustainable growth) than we currently are with our wasteful and unsustainable use of non-renewable resources.
Paul,
As a former ethical “vegan”, who changed my position only after I realized that my position was both intellectually and morally bankrupt, I appreciate where you’re coming from.
From my perspective, the best current personal options we have for compassionate living are either supporting permaculture-based systems that are using livestock or returning to the wild and hunting for ourselves, as you describe. There is no viable vegan option, as far as I can see.
I have a degree in crop and soil science, and I’ve asked people to share with me a plan about how we could possibly have a NON animal-based food system. And no one has offered even a rough outline of a plan. I don’t mean to be patronizing to anyone, but I feel the need to drive the point home: Where do you think that we get the nutrients to replace those that are removed when we harvest the plants?
Almost all of the produce that you buy is dependent on CAFO’s. This article will give you a rough idea of what I’m talking about:
https://www.biofortified.org/2013/12/organic-farming-reliant-on-synthetic-nitrogen/
That is the most likely reason that arsenic got into the “organic” rice…..the big organic manufacturers buying the chicken manure from the CAFO’s. (The chicken manure had arsenic because the giant poultry people were actually feeding it to the chickens!) So if you buy “vegan” food from the typical grocery store you are almost always supporting the folks who profit from the WORST POSSIBLE treatment of animals.
This is why I contend that, short of hunting, gardening, and gathering food for yourself, the best current way to support BETTER treatment of animals is to buy all food DIRECTLY from small farmers who incorporate animals into their own system.
I don’t know what you have already read thus far in this discussion, so I’m not going to repeat myself, but I do submit to you that compassionate living is highly context-dependent. So, it’s quite different to be a “vegan” living in Florida than a “vegan” Inuit. The latter is deluded if he actually thinks that having fresh produce delivered to his door is more ethical/compassionate than just killing and eating the fish around him. (I’m sure that this is probably obvious to you, but believe it or not, this is perceived as a reactionary and “self-centered” idea to some on this forum).
This is one reason that I’m so passionate about opposing “veganism” in its current incarnation, and put the word in quotes. The reality is that I don’t believe I’ve ever met an actual vegan!
“Companionate living” first requires educating and empowering women in order to slow population growth, then religions need a ground shaking awakening in its “dominion” dogmas and then local people need to be allowed to raise there own crops, and the lust for western consumerism needs to burn out.
Paul,
Yes, I agree. Preferably all of those things at once.
Denise Minger and Chris Kresser are real people… inherent in that is a certain level of accountability to what they write and post… up to and including, potentially legal liability for any advice they may give. The research they offer is based on the scientific method.. open to critical scrutiny. the vegan agenda on the other hand is driven by emotion rather than unbiased reason. Just as witnessed in the comments section here.
If the research on PP’s site is valid, then it will be available elsewhere, without a strong vegan slant put onto it.
That you fail to see (or accept) my concerns regarding PP, underlines for me your lack of credibility in these matters.
I respectfully disagree with you on many points you just made.
And you still did not answer my question, but it appears as though the research you have done is reading blogs – Kresser and Minger to name 2 you site. Thats ok, it is just not enough for me.
My other response is awaiting moderation but in short I owe you no explanation. I am well read and convinced of what I know. You claiming to be “OpenMinded” while persisting in promoting an obviously biased blogger, leaves me in little doubt as to your true agenda here.
Nope, I was sharing a link for those who might be interested. All bloggers are biased for they are people.
…but some are more people than others.
…and some are more biased than others.
Sure Chris Kresser and Denise Minger (as examples) based on their current convictions, may have a certain slant towards Paleo, LCHF, WAPF, or whatever, but fundamentally they are still wiling to follow wherever the data leads.
Vegan “science” starts and ends with “killing animals is wrong”… such dogma prevents a person following the data in an unbiased fashion.
Did your response ever go through-I don’t see it? If not can you re-post?
See your response now and Wow. Sorry, this is simply not true whether you eat meat or not: per you “Vegan “science” starts and ends with “killing animals is wrong”… such dogma prevents a person following the data in an unbiased fashion.”
But it does tell me why you never answered my question as to where you do your research -you apparently don’t. If you did at least read research you find data/research not based on the premise you state but rather trying to find out pieces to better health – hate to break it to you – no one has all the answers.
“…hate to break it to you – no one has all the answers.”
Where exactly do you see me claiming any different?
Do you think that spouting platitudes makes you sound wise or something?
The scientific method is driven forward by questions… if all the answers were ever found, it would stop..! that is why dogma (such as veganity) is the antithesis of science.
You honestly expect me to believe that I could search the PCRM or PP site and find research that promoted animal-products as healthy alternatives, without, at the very least, some commentary or opinion “debunking” such a study?
“Where exactly do you see me claiming any different?”
You constantly do this by claiming that researchers present findings in favor of the value of eating plants can be dismissed on the basis: (1) “Vegan “science” starts and ends with “killing animals is wrong”… such dogma prevents a person following the data in an unbiased fashion.” (2) “expecting unbiased research from such an agenda is like expecting unbiased information on race-relations from a bunch of neo-nazis”. for 2 examples. This way of thinking is may be helpful to others but not to me personally.
You make no logical sense, it seems pointless trying to have any kind of discussion with you… I was responding to your platitude that “…hate to break it to you – no one has all the answers.”
I agree that no-one has all the answers.
I take issue with vegan dogma because they THINK that they DO have the answers. They are wrong.
My position (and that of the scientific method) is open to change if/as further evidence is presented. Up to and including the possibility (no matter how remote it may currently seem) that becoming a vegan may be best for me and the planet.
A dogmatic vegan who believes that “killing animals is wrong” resists any attempt at revising that attitude in the same way that a new earth creationist resists any attempt to convince them (with evidence) that the Earth is over 4 billion years old and we have evolved from simpler lifeforms. Hard to reason with blind faith and emotion-based choices.
I personally want to make the most informed decision and try to separate out fact from opinion. Kresser also advocates for supplements for animal eaters – so whats the point here. I don’t know of any woman, with means, that doesn’t take prenatal vitamins and give their children vitamins. So take a vitamin if you want to.
But what we eat has so many variables including culture, beliefs, money tied to our stance, etc. Reading through the posts, I am surprised how those that eat meat/animal products – think that this is not the norm that science has not been “on their side” so to speak. Looking at the history of food, in the US at least, it is the vegans/vegetarians that have been on the fringes and remain there (although their numbers are growing). Even researchers who have found saturated fats and high cholesterol, etc. may lead to disease – still eat/ate it. Human behavior is so interesting to say the least.
For those research-minded who don’t have time to research every article cited in the Paleo circles, check out https://www.plantpositive.com. A large body of work from a nutritional researcher that at least raises some educated perspectives.
Right… so be “OpenMinded”, make an informed decision (just so long as it is the *right* one.. wink wink) and as we know you are all too busy to do your own research, let a vegan tell you what to think.. OK?
You jump very quickly to conclusions about people. I really am doing my own research, including reading Kresser’s site, Plant Positive, PubMed, Medline, etc. I also own and have read too many books on both sides to list here but including The Paleo Diet, Primal Body Primal mind, Vegetarian Myth, China Study, Reversing Heart Disease, The Seduction of Food, The Spectrum, etc.
So it sounds like you do your own research too, what sources do you use besides Kresser?
“You jump very quickly to conclusions about people.”
Actually my default position is that there is goodness in all people and I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt… on the other hand I have read enough to learn when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. Momma didn’t raise no fool…
You see what really gets me thinking is why the need to play games and hide, if you have the truth on your side?
Here we have someone calling themselves “OpenMind” earlier we had “OnTheFence”.. both with obvious vegan agendas. Then there is my favourite [Vegan] Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine…
I don’t take issue with anyone having an vegan agenda or point of view — that is your right to have and mine to disagree with — but if it is based in truth, facts, unbiased research etc… then surely it ought to speak for itself without resorting to subterfuge.
You stand a better chance of convincing me without playing games. Do you really have such a low opinion of others that you think them so easily hoodwinked into reading a site like PP? The end justifies the means perhaps? It’s for their own good maybe?
Sure there are lots of words on that site, plenty of quotes and links to research etc… (makes me wonder how it is all financed.. who has a vested interest in such an anonymous project?) BUT also an overriding amount of agenda-driven interpretation of that research and just plain opinion… verbiage which quite frankly I am not willing to wade through to try and sift for the facts. Much less so after such an underhanded attempt to trick me into reading there.
Oh see my comment above. I am not trying to convince you or anyone – just sharing a site that shows the research, encourages one to look it up and read it for themselves- no hoodwinking.
I did find he says when it is his opinion but shows/sites the actually research for all to see. I guess you are not reader/listener “verbiage which quite frankly I am not willing to wade through to try and sift for the facts.” All the diet books and blogs are full of opinion smattered with fact.
Are you PlantPositive? Otherwise how do you know that this anonymous but crazily prolific blogger and YouTube poster (70 hours worth?!?) is a “nutritional researcher that at least raises some educated perspectives” …because he is not willing to share who he is or what qualifies him.
Once again, the truth has no need to hide behind subterfuge and anonymity.
I am not PlantPositive. I personally don’t care that he is anonymous because he is showing research I can look up – see for myself – he is not selling a book he has to defend, site is not monetized, etc.
You didn’t answer my question “So it sounds like you do your own research too, what sources do you use besides Kresser?” and you are anonymous too.
If anyone else cares -I will include here to save a hoodwinking click to the website but is found under FAQs:
It was not a mere oversight that I left my name off of all my material. I have made the choice to remain anonymous. Since I don’t make money or personally benefit from this project there is no incentive for me to expose myself to all the negativity that would surely follow a disclosure of my identity (I have received more than enough flak as it is). I make no money from defending veganism and I never have. I have no affiliation with any animal rights organization. Not only have I provided you with references for everything I say, I have shown you actual pictures and scans of the relevant material in those references so you don’t need to track them down yourself. As I write this I don’t know of any advocate for Paleo/low-carb/saturated fat/cholesterol, etc. who has done any of these things with such scale and consistency. In addition, I maintain an active errata page.
Yes I read that FAQ and see no mention of “nutritional researcher” or “educated”…
Prove to me that the site is not funded by those with a vested interest. Who else has the time and money (just the access to studies is not cheap) to support such an effort?
I may be anonymous but I am not a blogger… I post under the same alias everywhere I post and I think that my comments speak for themselves. I make no claim to be an “expert”
I agree that all blogs books etc… have opinion interlaced with fact… my concern is being able to go in with the clear understanding that I am reading from an agenda-driven point of view (and vegan is very much agenda-driven) and not the way you are trying to portray it as if it were unbiased.
I don’t trust PP and I think you lack credibility.
Still didn’t answer my question as to who/how/where you do your research?
For me, I don’t have trouble with knowing the credentials of PlantPositive, he shows the research articles. Also, as you have said before when defending Minger – it doesn’t matter. I was sharing a researched based site in case anyone wanted to take a look is all.
I don’t see that I owe you any explanation. I am comfortable with my own level of research and my own convictions on these topics.
So far as I am concerned you should feel free to share whatever you like… just be honest about it, or you can expect to be called on it.
Frank, seriously? You would sit back there behind your computer and wonder as to the motivations and possibly “hidden” funding being a vegan-oriented site, and consider it nefarious?
And you don’t use the same logic for everything else you see regarding food, regarding medicine, regarding things like diabetes and cancer, chemo et al?
Sometimes we must shake our heads collectively at the ridiculous efforts to maintain the same-ole same-ole.
Find ANY experienced heart surgeon that will undergo surgery prior to consulting with a plant-based specialist for his or her own health, and then perhaps we can talk.
Where exactly do you see me NOT applying the same critical scrutiny to ALL “expert” advice?
Veganity is an ideology… as I wrote in a comment below…
‘…[the scientific method] follows wherever the data leads.
Vegan “science” starts and ends with “killing animals is wrong”… such dogma prevents a person following the data in an unbiased fashion.’
https://healthland.time.com/2014/02/24/7-reasons-vegetarians-live-longer/
Same source…
“People who don’t eat vegetarian can still be very healthy, and a vegetarian diet comes with its own health risks. For instance, research has also shown that vegetarians are at a higher risk for iron deficiencies, and some experts question whether children who are raised vegetarian get the right amount of nutrients for their growing bodies. Making sure you get the right amount of nutrients is important, and keeping your physician in the loop about your eating habits can make sure you’re meeting all the requirements for good health.”
How irresponsible of you! A brand new meta-analysis does not seem to argue with what you are claiming here! Not that we don’t already have abundant evidence derived from countless studies supporting the health benefits of a plant-based diet, here is a new meta ananlysis just published in JAMA Internal Medicine, of 39 high quality studies with 21,…000 participants in 18 countries between 1900-2013, proving that vegetarians consistenly have lower blood pressure. While hypertension might seem harmless since it’s often presented without symptoms, overtime, it can can cause serious damage to our bodies – quietly. Some of those include damage to our arteries, heart, brain, eye, and kidneys. It is also one of the leading causes of stroke.