What is your take on a Fully Raw Vegan Lifestyle?
Options
Replies
-
0
-
I like the occasional raw vegan coconut cookie (by occasional I mean eating the whole bag at one sitting) but overall I could never give up meat or cooking and it seems kinda silly to try. There is zero evidence that it is in any way beneficial. I hear some people say "oh I feel so much better" but when you look at the before and after pictures of them they look like they have contracted some disease that is slowly wasting them away. Instead of looking healthy but trim they look sunk in and their skin seems dull and lifeless.
Vegetarians in general or raw vegans?0 -
I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »allbarrett wrote: »Make sure you tell your health care provider about your dietary changes. There are vitamins and such that are easier to get through eating meat or other non-vegetarian/non-vegan products and you'll want to make sure that you aren't developing any deficiencies (usually entails slightly more detailed blood work when you have your normal check ups).
Sorry this is just a myth as a Vegan (not a Raw one) for 20 years plus the only thing that is difficult to get through a Vegan diet is Vitamin B12 which is easily available via fortified foods or a supplement.
As for talking to a health care provider most are pretty clueless about any Non meat eating diet and will be pretty useless
As for the Raw Vegan lifestyle I have no issues if it works for people but my opinion on it is the same as a normal Vegan diet it is not some panacea to health. You can have bad Vegan diets the same way you can have good ones containing animal products. I am a Vegan for ethical reasons and would live this way no matter what.
I would caution about starting a diet that you do not plan living that way for the rest of your life.
Why not just eat a varied vegan/vegetarian diet based mainly around wholefoods but without depriving yourself of things. That to me is a much more sustainable long term way of thinking about food
Good luck
Sorry, but it's NOT a myth. What they said was that it's easier to get some vitamins etc through eating meat and dairy, and that's true. It is easier to get protein, B12, iron etc through eating meat. The poster didn't say that it's not possible to get those things in a vegan diet, they didn't even say that it was difficult as a vegan, they just said that it's easier to get those things as an omnivore.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
How are those two things even remotely connected?
0 -
I find it tends to exacerbate orthorexia a lot.0
-
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
0 -
Before you take the leap, please watch this video (nine minutes long). I would love to hear your opinion on this scientist's findings.
https://www.ted.com/talks/suzana_herculano_houzel_what_is_so_special_about_the_human_brain?language=en
Thanks for the link, that was really interesting.
One slight criticism: she overlooked dragons. They also cook their food. But maybe that's why they are such formidable foes
0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
That generally seems to be the main argument against veganism, yet I rarely see it used in other contexts.
And OMG yes on the "veganarchists". I have some on my FB feed and they are ridiculous.0 -
I personally think it's "trendy" and would be all too consuming, too limiting, annoying to the people around you, and really end up quitting anyhow. How many people have you met that are raw vegans long term? Not many.
Healthy to me is moderation. Eating a variety of items, colours, textures and feeling okay about it. Eating a lot of raw food would be fine but to be rigid and say you are only eating raw is too extreme for my tastes.
0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
you deserve a medal for your willingness to attempt to discuss veganisim with that type of person.0 -
I think it could do you a lot of physical harm, honestly. Please talk to a dietitian first if you really think this is going to be something to try. I've seen a lot of youtubes from people who tried it and got very sick and regret it.0
-
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
The money spent creates demand which in a free market will consequently increase supply. If meat starts spoiling on the shelves in greater quantities, producers will scale back production.
And yes, one single decision has negligible impact, but that argument is like saying there's no point voting because one vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme.0 -
Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
I meant that buying meat or not is more controllable than spending money. Your comment about contributing to more cruelties by earning a paycheck comment has me just as confused with its logic - or at least application to real life. Maybe if you explain what 'far greater cruelties' will happen 'just by earning a paycheck' it may become clearer.
I have a couple of issues with your logic re the filling the shelves comment, the main one of which is the lack of supply and demand considerations - if no-one buys meat, those shelves will not be filled.
Also, I think the term 'ethical' has been pulled out of the vernacular to imply that anyone who says that they are an ethical veg*n thinks that anyone who eats meat is unethical. That is just not the case for everyone. The term "ethical' is often used to be clearer as to why someone does not eat meat - e.g.. not for health or weight loss reasons - not that they think people who eat meat are unethical as people, or that they are more ethical as people.
I do not like the term personally, as it can smack of elitism/holier then thou to me (even when not intended that way) - although I have used the term as its an easy identifying in some situations.
I honestly still do not get your logic or your confusion about why people may be veg*ns. People are veg*ns for many reasons. Many times it is as simple as "I feel better about myself if I do not eat meat'. We are emotion driven creatures and not Vulcans....although Spock did not eat meat (but that was physiological and not emotion driven).
0 -
MakePeasNotWar wrote: »Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Now that logic confuses me.
One is controllable. The other, less so.
is it? how is an individual refusing to buy meat products at the supermarket any more impactful on animal cruelty than refusing to spend money on any other good or service, the proceeds of which almost certainly end up contributing to human cruelty?
what makes one more controllable than the other?
Honestly, you have totally lost me (honestly confused not being snarky).
going to the store and purchasing a breast from a chicken which has already been slaughtered is no more a direct contribution to cruelty against other creatures than paying your taxes.
not buying meat will not save any animals. those animals will still be treated poorly and slaughtered indiscriminately (much as human cruelty will continue to be perpetuated across the globe). if you do not buy the meat, even if no one buys the meat, it will sit on the shelf until it expires and is simply discarded. the empty spot on the shelf will immediately be filled with yet more meat from yet more dead animals.
is it not hypocritical to abstain from meat in the spirit of ethics while simultaneously contributing to far greater cruelties in the same indirect manner simply by earning a paycheck?
and again, in response to your first reply, what makes animal cruelty more "controllable" than human cruelty?Docbanana2002 wrote: »I'm a vegan for ethical reasons and plan my vegan diet with lots of fresh whole foods and careful attention to nutrition for health reasons (but I also have treats like chocolate and wine now and then for psychological reasons!).
I am not convinced that doing vegan plus raw, gluten free, sugar free, oil free, or any of the other fads out there are really important for good health unless you have a specific medical condition (like Celiac disease) that you are trying to treat with those approaches. It seems like too much strictness and limitation for no good reason to me.
the ethical argument always confuses me
people spend money all the time, and eventually that money will work its way up to a government or business that exploits, injures, oppresses, and/or slaughters other human beings. and people rarely blink an eye
but eating animals is unethical
Sounds like moral nihilism argument. The fact that you can't perfectly avoid being part of some kind of suffering doesn't mean you give up minimizing suffering. Plus the one solution to that attempt at moral paradox is anarcho-veganism, and that's even more annoying to hear about.
are you sure that's moral nihilism?
the real crux of my argument is that abstaining from meat has absolutely zero impact on suffering. I make no claim that cruelty to animals is amoral.
The money spent creates demand which in a free market will consequently increase supply. If meat starts spoiling on the shelves in greater quantities, producers will scale back production.
And yes, one single decision has negligible impact, but that argument is like saying there's no point voting because one vote doesn't matter in the grand scheme.
the difference there is that voting is part of a social institution, whereas veganism is assuredly not. it's a way to feel "moral" while sitting comfortably at home, making no real contribution or impact. at least go join PETA and hand out some fliers or throw blood on a rich socialite or some other *kitten*. or do something real like join Habitat for Humanity and build a house for someone less fortunate.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions