Going vegan
capgordon5385
Posts: 15 Member
Anyone else doing this looking to get great ideas and hit the macros
0
Replies
-
I have a huge pile of vegan cookbooks. The problem of some of them is that they're low in protein. I'm not vegan and often add some more protein of choice. Is there a specific reason why you chose vegan? For ethical reasons is probably the best reason there is. But being vegan doesn't lead to weightloss. Actually, I find that many vegan or vegetarian proteins are higher in calories than meat. And vegan chicken/sausage/whatever tends to be very high in calories and salt. Nothing inherently wrong with that if you enjoy eating those, but just as a note.1
-
Why?
There are lots of good reasons to become vegan (the full animal-exploitation avoidance lifestyle) or to eat fully plant based (the dietary part, but maybe still wear leather & such).
It's not more healthy than being an omnivore, and it's a complete tangent for weight loss. (Advocacy sites will argue otherwise.)
I'm not a shill for Big Meat, BTW: I'm not fully plant based/vegan, but I've been vegetarian for 48+ years so far, basically my entire adult life (since age 18). I have a decent understanding of the nutritional issues for plant-based eating, because I have a lot of that going on, even though I do still include some dairy and eggs (ovo-lacto vegetarian).
Fully plant based eating makes getting good nutrition slightly more difficult (requires a bit more conscious attention), plus makes social life (and maybe travel) slightly more complicated. Those are not big obstacles, if a person has strong reasons to go that route.
Whether it's worth doing is very individual. IMO, most of the good reasons are ethical or moral . . . and that's not a criticism. Not even close.
If you do decide to go that route, be very cautious about the claims of some advocacy sites. This is a very good resource for a science-based view of vegan nutrition, a site with content from registered dietitians who themselves are vegan:
https://veganhealth.org/
Check out the "Tips for New Vegans" - prominent link on the first page - there.
Best wishes!
ETA: I'm not remotely affiliated with that site in any way, for the record. I've just found it a sound mainstream source of nutritional information, in its scope.3 -
I hear u thanks for the advice . Am definitely cutting out the meat cause I've been eating vegitarian/vegan meals for the last few weeks and I feel good plus the food tastes awesome .4
-
capgordon5385 wrote: »I hear u thanks for the advice . Am definitely cutting out the meat cause I've been eating vegitarian/vegan meals for the last few weeks and I feel good plus the food tastes awesome .
make sure you're supplementing B12 as you won't be getting any in your food if you are strictly plant based. I would also recommend getting your iron tested when you have your annual checkups as anemia is very common amongst vegans and vegetarians due to the lack of meat in the diet. Kind of SOL on EPA and DHA Omegas so make sure you're getting plenty of ALAs.1 -
capgordon5385 wrote: »I hear u thanks for the advice . Am definitely cutting out the meat cause I've been eating vegitarian/vegan meals for the last few weeks and I feel good plus the food tastes awesome .
I can get behind this. I am pretty "plant forward" in my eating and cooking. Get to know your beans, for sure.
I will say that I try to hit at least 80 grams of protein a day, and meat propels me to that total in leaps. No meat gets me there in planned, carefully calculated chunks of 5-10 grams per non-meat vegan-approved-protein item. You've got to be pretty diligent.3 -
I’ve been vegan for about 5 years. I gained weight at first because the food is actually delicious and I wasn’t counting calories or macros. Over the last year, I have lost 25 lbs of fat and gained 13 lbs of muscle on a strictly vegan diet. I have the before and after Dexa scans to prove it. I did it with the help of a coach through The Vegan Gym. Protein can be challenging for vegans but the best protein sources are tofu, seitan, tempeh, and edamame. I also add vegan protein powder to my oatmeal and smoothies. Nuts and beans are not good protein sources if you are trying to build muscle. It is definitely do-able, and I honestly love the food. Nourishes the body and soul.2
-
Not just B-12 and protein require attention. B-12 must be supplemented, of course. (The B-12 in nutritional yeast is added, i.e. it's fortified because yeast makes other B vitamins but not B-12. If you're relying on nutritional yeast for B-12, make sure it's a fortified one.)
You're not SOL on Omegas, because algae-sourced EPA and DHA is an option.
Calcium and Iron may require attention. We can get them from plant foods, it's just not as automatic, and it's relevant that plant-sourced Iron tends to be less bioavailable.
Those are just a few examples of considerations, I think some of the more important ones. I'm not saying a fully plant-based (vegan) diet is profoundly difficult or non-nutritious. That would be false. I'm saying that some nutrients will require a little bit more attention at first, because the eating patterns and assumptions we typically bring over from our omnivore lifestyles don't make it happen automatically.
It's very doable, it just requires a little extra thought and attention.
Don't rely on what other people here are saying, especially people who don't have relevant experience, including don't rely on me. Also don't rely on anyone who says "I'm vegan and I feel great so no worries" or "vegans don't need to worry about nutrition because plant foods are just that healthy" (yes, people or advocacy sites actually say things that dumb).
Use that link above to the VeganHealth site, or similar science-based sources.1 -
It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers1
-
neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.3 -
neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.0 -
I am a thriving super happy vegan and my boyfriend is a ripped Muscular vegan so feel free to add me0
-
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.3 -
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.
Your old enough to take responsibility and I do hope you thrive and stay healthy. Unfortunately not everyone does. My sister needed medical help because of her vegan diet and her lifelong friend and schoolmate didn't do much better, neither looked healthy for years and it wasn't pretty. AnnPT77 relayed twice in this thread to help inform people that it's a complicated diet and that care must be given and many others chimed in as as well and yes, there are consequences when there isn't.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.
Your old enough to take responsibility and I do hope you thrive and stay healthy. Unfortunately not everyone does. My sister needed medical help because of her vegan diet and her lifelong friend and schoolmate didn't do much better, neither looked healthy for years and it wasn't pretty. AnnPT77 relayed twice in this thread to help inform people that it's a complicated diet and that care must be given and many others chimed in as as well and yes, there are consequences when there isn't.
And to give the opposite example: I get sick if I eat a diet high in protein, especially egg and lean meat, and when eating too much fat overall. Thus can we all just agree that we're talking insular situations here, and that probably every varied way of eating is healthy enough and that some people don't thrive on one way of eating and others don't?3 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.
Your old enough to take responsibility and I do hope you thrive and stay healthy. Unfortunately not everyone does. My sister needed medical help because of her vegan diet and her lifelong friend and schoolmate didn't do much better, neither looked healthy for years and it wasn't pretty. AnnPT77 relayed twice in this thread to help inform people that it's a complicated diet and that care must be given and many others chimed in as as well and yes, there are consequences when there isn't.
And to give the opposite example: I get sick if I eat a diet high in protein, especially egg and lean meat, and when eating too much fat overall. Thus can we all just agree that we're talking insular situations here, and that probably every varied way of eating is healthy enough and that some people don't thrive on one way of eating and others don't?
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your theory yirara. There will be aversions to particular foods on an individual basis, no doubt about it. People may have aversions to eggplant or nuts for example but that doesn't mean these foods are problematic for everyone that consume them, just that some individuals may not thrive and actually get sick or worse yet, end up in the hospital or die. A dietary intervention that fundamentally doesn't contain all the necessary and essential nutrients in order to thrive, not to mention the lack bioavailability of many other nutrients is what is concerning and of course that's just my opinion. Cheers.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.
Your old enough to take responsibility and I do hope you thrive and stay healthy. Unfortunately not everyone does. My sister needed medical help because of her vegan diet and her lifelong friend and schoolmate didn't do much better, neither looked healthy for years and it wasn't pretty. AnnPT77 relayed twice in this thread to help inform people that it's a complicated diet and that care must be given and many others chimed in as as well and yes, there are consequences when there isn't.
And to give the opposite example: I get sick if I eat a diet high in protein, especially egg and lean meat, and when eating too much fat overall. Thus can we all just agree that we're talking insular situations here, and that probably every varied way of eating is healthy enough and that some people don't thrive on one way of eating and others don't?
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your theory yirara. There will be aversions to particular foods on an individual basis, no doubt about it. People may have aversions to eggplant or nuts for example but that doesn't mean these foods are problematic for everyone that consume them, just that some individuals may not thrive and actually get sick or worse yet, end up in the hospital or die. A dietary intervention that fundamentally doesn't contain all the necessary and essential nutrients in order to thrive, not to mention the lack bioavailability of many other nutrients is what is concerning and of course that's just my opinion. Cheers.
Meat does NOT supply all the vitamins and minerals we need. Almost no food does. Dark leafy greens ate close, but regress of diet we need an array and variety.
Fortunately I have advanced knowledge onvegan,plant based eating. I went to college for physiology with interest in nutrition and health.I have taken several courses endorsed by ACSM and accredited teachers. I have had plant based doctors, one who is a GP that specializes in TCM. Abd a doctor of Orirntal Medicine. I also belong to web pages specified for healthy vegan living and nutrition
Cheers2 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.
Your old enough to take responsibility and I do hope you thrive and stay healthy. Unfortunately not everyone does. My sister needed medical help because of her vegan diet and her lifelong friend and schoolmate didn't do much better, neither looked healthy for years and it wasn't pretty. AnnPT77 relayed twice in this thread to help inform people that it's a complicated diet and that care must be given and many others chimed in as as well and yes, there are consequences when there isn't.
And to give the opposite example: I get sick if I eat a diet high in protein, especially egg and lean meat, and when eating too much fat overall. Thus can we all just agree that we're talking insular situations here, and that probably every varied way of eating is healthy enough and that some people don't thrive on one way of eating and others don't?
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your theory yirara. There will be aversions to particular foods on an individual basis, no doubt about it. People may have aversions to eggplant or nuts for example but that doesn't mean these foods are problematic for everyone that consume them, just that some individuals may not thrive and actually get sick or worse yet, end up in the hospital or die. A dietary intervention that fundamentally doesn't contain all the necessary and essential nutrients in order to thrive, not to mention the lack bioavailability of many other nutrients is what is concerning and of course that's just my opinion. Cheers.
Meat does NOT supply all the vitamins and minerals we need. Almost no food does. Dark leafy greens ate close, but regress of diet we need an array and variety.
Fortunately I have advanced knowledge onvegan,plant based eating. I went to college for physiology with interest in nutrition and health.I have taken several courses endorsed by ACSM and accredited teachers. I have had plant based doctors, one who is a GP that specializes in TCM. Abd a doctor of Orirntal Medicine. I also belong to web pages specified for healthy vegan living and nutrition
Cheers
Vitamin C is actually the only essential vitamin not found in useful amounts in cooked meat, however can be found in eggs as well as raw liver. What meat lacks nutritionally that is found mostly in plants are flavonoids, antioxidants, and fiber. There are also a number of nutrients only found in meat or for which plant foods need to be fortified:
D3
B12
Retinol (Vitamin A)
Creatine
Carnitine
Carnosine
Heme iron
DHA
EPA
Taurine
I am by no means a carnivore...I'm an omnivore that eats a lot of plants. Abstaining from animal products for ethical reasons makes complete sense...for nutritional reasons, not so much. The human default setting is omnivorous, and there's a reason for that.
1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.
Your old enough to take responsibility and I do hope you thrive and stay healthy. Unfortunately not everyone does. My sister needed medical help because of her vegan diet and her lifelong friend and schoolmate didn't do much better, neither looked healthy for years and it wasn't pretty. AnnPT77 relayed twice in this thread to help inform people that it's a complicated diet and that care must be given and many others chimed in as as well and yes, there are consequences when there isn't.
And to give the opposite example: I get sick if I eat a diet high in protein, especially egg and lean meat, and when eating too much fat overall. Thus can we all just agree that we're talking insular situations here, and that probably every varied way of eating is healthy enough and that some people don't thrive on one way of eating and others don't?
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your theory yirara. There will be aversions to particular foods on an individual basis, no doubt about it. People may have aversions to eggplant or nuts for example but that doesn't mean these foods are problematic for everyone that consume them, just that some individuals may not thrive and actually get sick or worse yet, end up in the hospital or die. A dietary intervention that fundamentally doesn't contain all the necessary and essential nutrients in order to thrive, not to mention the lack bioavailability of many other nutrients is what is concerning and of course that's just my opinion. Cheers.
Meat does NOT supply all the vitamins and minerals we need. Almost no food does. Dark leafy greens ate close, but regress of diet we need an array and variety.
Fortunately I have advanced knowledge onvegan,plant based eating. I went to college for physiology with interest in nutrition and health.I have taken several courses endorsed by ACSM and accredited teachers. I have had plant based doctors, one who is a GP that specializes in TCM. Abd a doctor of Orirntal Medicine. I also belong to web pages specified for healthy vegan living and nutrition
Cheers
Vitamin C is actually the only essential vitamin not found in useful amounts in cooked meat, however can be found in eggs as well as raw liver. What meat lacks nutritionally that is found mostly in plants are flavonoids, antioxidants, and fiber. There are also a number of nutrients only found in meat or for which plant foods need to be fortified:
D3
B12
Retinol (Vitamin A)
Creatine
Carnitine
Carnosine
Heme iron
DHA
EPA
Taurine
I am by no means a carnivore...I'm an omnivore that eats a lot of plants. Abstaining from animal products for ethical reasons makes complete sense...for nutritional reasons, not so much. The human default setting is omnivorous, and there's a reason for that.
I'm a vegetarian, and completely agree with the bolded, though I'd expand it to ethical or social-benefits reasons as well as moral. (That's a fine distinction, a quibble, I know - but in my semantics, if it were a moral issue, I'd be more likely to proselytize for whatever the "right" moral choice was.)
Ease of adequate nutrition, especially in a fortunate developed-world context, isn't the only relevant consideration.
But even as a decades-long vegetarian myself, I do believe that the easiest way to get overall good nutrition is as an omnivore. If the main/only considerations are nutrition, health, or even weight loss . . . be an omnivore. I've said as much on quite a few threads here.
At the same time, I do also believe that some people see relatively quick and significant health benefits from a change to a fully plant-based diet. (I think most of them would see those benefits if they simply started getting much larger amounts of veggies/fruits alongside meats/fish. Most people - in the US at least - eat far too little of veggies/fruits for best results.)
Plant-based eating does require somewhat more attention to achieve good nutrition, including some supplementation, but there's been some (for my taste) over-dramatic hand-wringing about the difficulty of that. Maybe I just think committed people can be smarter than some other people think they can? I do tend to Pollyanna-ism sometimes. I also don't like drama, and catastrophizing (especially about other adults' diets) is kinda dramatic, IMO.
Frankly, most omnivores' actual eating patterns - here in the US, at least - really need some supplementation to achieve best outcomes, too. For them, and for people eating fully plant-based, there's some rational room to question whether supplementation really achieves as good an outcome as getting all nutrition from food. (I suspect it doesn't.) I don't think the longevity/health hit from that difference - at this stage of the science - is likely to be huge, though.
2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.
Your old enough to take responsibility and I do hope you thrive and stay healthy. Unfortunately not everyone does. My sister needed medical help because of her vegan diet and her lifelong friend and schoolmate didn't do much better, neither looked healthy for years and it wasn't pretty. AnnPT77 relayed twice in this thread to help inform people that it's a complicated diet and that care must be given and many others chimed in as as well and yes, there are consequences when there isn't.
And to give the opposite example: I get sick if I eat a diet high in protein, especially egg and lean meat, and when eating too much fat overall. Thus can we all just agree that we're talking insular situations here, and that probably every varied way of eating is healthy enough and that some people don't thrive on one way of eating and others don't?
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your theory yirara. There will be aversions to particular foods on an individual basis, no doubt about it. People may have aversions to eggplant or nuts for example but that doesn't mean these foods are problematic for everyone that consume them, just that some individuals may not thrive and actually get sick or worse yet, end up in the hospital or die. A dietary intervention that fundamentally doesn't contain all the necessary and essential nutrients in order to thrive, not to mention the lack bioavailability of many other nutrients is what is concerning and of course that's just my opinion. Cheers.
Meat does NOT supply all the vitamins and minerals we need. Almost no food does. Dark leafy greens ate close, but regress of diet we need an array and variety.
Fortunately I have advanced knowledge onvegan,plant based eating. I went to college for physiology with interest in nutrition and health.I have taken several courses endorsed by ACSM and accredited teachers. I have had plant based doctors, one who is a GP that specializes in TCM. Abd a doctor of Orirntal Medicine. I also belong to web pages specified for healthy vegan living and nutrition
Cheers
Vitamin C is actually the only essential vitamin not found in useful amounts in cooked meat, however can be found in eggs as well as raw liver. What meat lacks nutritionally that is found mostly in plants are flavonoids, antioxidants, and fiber. There are also a number of nutrients only found in meat or for which plant foods need to be fortified:
D3
B12
Retinol (Vitamin A)
Creatine
Carnitine
Carnosine
Heme iron
DHA
EPA
Taurine
I am by no means a carnivore...I'm an omnivore that eats a lot of plants. Abstaining from animal products for ethical reasons makes complete sense...for nutritional reasons, not so much. The human default setting is omnivorous, and there's a reason for that.
I'm a vegetarian, and completely agree with the bolded, though I'd expand it to ethical or social-benefits reasons as well as moral. (That's a fine distinction, a quibble, I know - but in my semantics, if it were a moral issue, I'd be more likely to proselytize for whatever the "right" moral choice was.)
Ease of adequate nutrition, especially in a fortunate developed-world context, isn't the only relevant consideration.
But even as a decades-long vegetarian myself, I do believe that the easiest way to get overall good nutrition is as an omnivore. If the main/only considerations are nutrition, health, or even weight loss . . . be an omnivore. I've said as much on quite a few threads here.
At the same time, I do also believe that some people see relatively quick and significant health benefits from a change to a fully plant-based diet. (I think most of them would see those benefits if they simply started getting much larger amounts of veggies/fruits alongside meats/fish. Most people - in the US at least - eat far too little of veggies/fruits for best results.)
Plant-based eating does require somewhat more attention to achieve good nutrition, including some supplementation, but there's been some (for my taste) over-dramatic hand-wringing about the difficulty of that. Maybe I just think committed people can be smarter than some other people think they can? I do tend to Pollyanna-ism sometimes. I also don't like drama, and catastrophizing (especially about other adults' diets) is kinda dramatic, IMO.
Frankly, most omnivores' actual eating patterns - here in the US, at least - really need some supplementation to achieve best outcomes, too. For them, and for people eating fully plant-based, there's some rational room to question whether supplementation really achieves as good an outcome as getting all nutrition from food. (I suspect it doesn't.) I don't think the longevity/health hit from that difference - at this stage of the science - is likely to be huge, though.
this was my experience to a large extent...not really going plant based or vegetarian, though I did try vegetarian for a month or so...but when I really started to work on my diet as an omnivore I made whole foods in general a premium. So for example, fish sticks with Kraft Mac 'n Cheese was a frequent flyer back in the day...now that's usually a baked or pan fried cod filet with broccoli or a side salad and sometimes some quinoa.
I definitely put an emphasis on more veg and fruit, but I put a huge emphasis on more whole foods in general as well as selecting more lean animal sources and quite a bit more fish as we typically eat sustainably caught fish 3-4x per week or more. Boneless/skinless chicken thighs come in 2nd. But we're pretty heavy on cod, shrimp, salmon, and tuna steaks...often canned tuna for lunch sandwiches and whatnot. We don't eat much beef as of late because it's become so expensive...I live in the desert SW and beef is more expensive than buying wild caught, flash frozen fish these days, even being landlocked.1 -
I think it might be a good idea to make the distinction between whole plant based foods to just plant based foods. Personally that is what I promote and of course I'm an omnivore so I do include animal based foods.
The vast majority of calorie dense nutrient deficient foods are ultra processed and considering they contribute to over 70% of the American diet it's probably important to realize that the vast majority of these foods are plant based. Most UP foods contain a very high percentage of refined grains, sugars, salt and refined seed oils, all plant foods. Most would agree we should reduce these kinds of foods, at least I believe that's the case. Cheers1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
]neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
Veganism is "not criticized"? 😆
Sure, it's touted in some quarters. It's vilified in others. 🤷♀️
Quasi-religious zeal about eating styles is IME dead common . . . about pretty much any and all eating styles, if you look for it (or simply fail to ignore it). Cognitive dissonance is everywhere.
hahah, your right. Maybe I should have said "whole food plant based" WFPB. it's the new vegan mantra and it sounds cool too. Cheers.
There's a distinction between WFPB and veganism, technically. Clarity is useful, I think.
Either or both are touted, vilified, sound cool or don't, along with a bunch of other dietary styles. 🤷♀️
If you're not a fan of veganism, why weigh in on a vegan thread? Isn't that similar to a vegan weighing in negatively on a carnivore thread?
It's possible (IMO) to be reasonably healthy on a WFPB diet, and there are issues other than health that are important to some people in the mix, when it comes to electing to be vegan.
If people could thrive and be reasonably healthy it would have shown up in a culture somewhere but it hasn't and I suspect it starts at child birth and infant and childhood nutrition. As a responsible adult, sure, if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those, but the demographics doesn't show very good adherence to longevity and for one reason or another people decide to quit and that number is more evident as it advances from the teen years onward and where it's almost non existent in the elderly. Health is the high watermark in my opinion, and why I believe it would be better to also consume some animal products and there's enough turnover in veganism that it appears that is also a factor. Cheers
Nope, I am
vegan and have been everything from carnivore, pescatarian, vegetarian. My other half is too. The remarkable health changes, plus ethical motivation. We see no chance of going back. Like ANNPT777 said, why post when you are not supportive. Regardless of argument, your not taking into consideration that others have opposing views that have validity. You may want to consider not everyone is
like you nor want negativity.
Your old enough to take responsibility and I do hope you thrive and stay healthy. Unfortunately not everyone does. My sister needed medical help because of her vegan diet and her lifelong friend and schoolmate didn't do much better, neither looked healthy for years and it wasn't pretty. AnnPT77 relayed twice in this thread to help inform people that it's a complicated diet and that care must be given and many others chimed in as as well and yes, there are consequences when there isn't.
And to give the opposite example: I get sick if I eat a diet high in protein, especially egg and lean meat, and when eating too much fat overall. Thus can we all just agree that we're talking insular situations here, and that probably every varied way of eating is healthy enough and that some people don't thrive on one way of eating and others don't?
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your theory yirara. There will be aversions to particular foods on an individual basis, no doubt about it. People may have aversions to eggplant or nuts for example but that doesn't mean these foods are problematic for everyone that consume them, just that some individuals may not thrive and actually get sick or worse yet, end up in the hospital or die. A dietary intervention that fundamentally doesn't contain all the necessary and essential nutrients in order to thrive, not to mention the lack bioavailability of many other nutrients is what is concerning and of course that's just my opinion. Cheers.
Meat does NOT supply all the vitamins and minerals we need. Almost no food does. Dark leafy greens ate close, but regress of diet we need an array and variety.
Fortunately I have advanced knowledge onvegan,plant based eating. I went to college for physiology with interest in nutrition and health.I have taken several courses endorsed by ACSM and accredited teachers. I have had plant based doctors, one who is a GP that specializes in TCM. Abd a doctor of Orirntal Medicine. I also belong to web pages specified for healthy vegan living and nutrition
Cheers
Vitamin C is actually the only essential vitamin not found in useful amounts in cooked meat, however can be found in eggs as well as raw liver. What meat lacks nutritionally that is found mostly in plants are flavonoids, antioxidants, and fiber. There are also a number of nutrients only found in meat or for which plant foods need to be fortified:
D3
B12
Retinol (Vitamin A)
Creatine
Carnitine
Carnosine
Heme iron
DHA
EPA
Taurine
I am by no means a carnivore...I'm an omnivore that eats a lot of plants. Abstaining from animal products for ethical reasons makes complete sense...for nutritional reasons, not so much. The human default setting is omnivorous, and there's a reason for that.
Yeah, vitamin C is probably the one essential vitamin that is said to be somewhat lacking in animal foods, but as you said it is there and predominantly in organ meats and certainly enough that scurvy isn't a problem.
However vitamin C is important, really important actually and I make sure I'm getting plenty from bell peppers, chili's and tomatoes and most vegetables have some vitamin C and I probably consume a total of 8 cups of veg a day, so I'm not too worried.
It maybe interesting or important to some people that vitamin C and sugar are metabolized and use the same GLUT-1 transport receptors. This is kind of a big deal actually for a lot of people that consume mostly carbohydrates and to a greater degree refined carbs and definitely sugars. GLUT-1 prefers glucose and will hook those up first and foremost when and if sugar is being digested at the same time and that vit C will just get excreted. Probably one of the vitamins that would benefit greatly from supplementation when consumed on an empty stomach and as long as the supplement doesn't have sugar in it. One of the more serious issues is the more sugar we consume the more free radicals formulate and promote the wrong type of LDL cholesterol that ironically require even higher amounts of vitamin C for it's antioxidant properties. Cheers
https://verywellhealth.com/what-is-small-dense-ldl-698072#:~:text=People%20at%20risk%20of%20developing%20small%2C%20dense%20LDL,have%20been%20diagnosed%20with%20metabolic%20syndrome.%204%20%EF%BB%BF
Risk Factors
Anyone, ranging from young adults to the elderly, can be at risk of developing small, dense LDL particles. It appears that the development of small, dense LDL can be inherited. Additionally, lifestyle can also play an important role in the formation of small, dense LDL.
People at risk of developing small, dense LDL in the blood include:- Individuals who consume a high amount of carbohydrates in their diet3, especially refined sugars.
- Those that consume trans fats in their diet.
- Anyone who has uncontrolled diabetes.
- Individuals who have been diagnosed with metabolic syndrome.4
1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
I am by no means a carnivore...I'm an omnivore that eats a lot of plants. Abstaining from animal products for ethical reasons makes complete sense...for nutritional reasons, not so much. The human default setting is omnivorous, and there's a reason for that.
I'm a vegetarian, and completely agree with the bolded, though I'd expand it to ethical or social-benefits reasons as well as moral. (That's a fine distinction, a quibble, I know - but in my semantics, if it were a moral issue, I'd be more likely to proselytize for whatever the "right" moral choice was.)
Ease of adequate nutrition, especially in a fortunate developed-world context, isn't the only relevant consideration.
But even as a decades-long vegetarian myself, I do believe that the easiest way to get overall good nutrition is as an omnivore. If the main/only considerations are nutrition, health, or even weight loss . . . be an omnivore. I've said as much on quite a few threads here.
At the same time, I do also believe that some people see relatively quick and significant health benefits from a change to a fully plant-based diet. (I think most of them would see those benefits if they simply started getting much larger amounts of veggies/fruits alongside meats/fish. Most people - in the US at least - eat far too little of veggies/fruits for best results.)
Plant-based eating does require somewhat more attention to achieve good nutrition, including some supplementation, but there's been some (for my taste) over-dramatic hand-wringing about the difficulty of that. Maybe I just think committed people can be smarter than some other people think they can? I do tend to Pollyanna-ism sometimes. I also don't like drama, and catastrophizing (especially about other adults' diets) is kinda dramatic, IMO.
Frankly, most omnivores' actual eating patterns - here in the US, at least - really need some supplementation to achieve best outcomes, too. For them, and for people eating fully plant-based, there's some rational room to question whether supplementation really achieves as good an outcome as getting all nutrition from food. (I suspect it doesn't.) I don't think the longevity/health hit from that difference - at this stage of the science - is likely to be huge, though.
I eat vegetables, legumes, leafy greens, nuts, seeds and wholegrains. I use Vibrant Health Green Vibrance, Nutritional Yeast, Sea greens, Algae and I enjoy a morning liquid multi, and my doctors wanted me on D before I was vegan because of bone health. Sesame seeds, pumpkin seeds, watercress, white beans, walnuts, soybeans and almonds contain amino acids like glycine, arginine, methionine, omega 3 and protein. Watermelon supplies citrulline for arginine production,
Quite frankly, I would rather abstain from animal and nourish with a WFPB diet, a few supplemental ingredients, and yes, it is also very much for ethical and environmental interest. I also do not do well with animal myself. I have way less inflammation, hardly if ever get the flu or sick and with autoimmune disease it helps me feel so much more alive. My digestion, energy and anxiety are greatly reduced this way.0 -
I work in a healthfood and supplement store. I have been there for about 7 years and personal trained. I have worked with many people. I talk to customers of all ages every day. The majority amount of people who's doctor advised them to take Vitamin D, B12, etc. Are NOT vegan or vegetarian. Yes, vegans absolutely need to make sure to get all essential nutrients and so do omnivores and carnivores. B12 came from the earth and soil before industrialization. There are a lot of things most people do not know about nutrients, food and how intrequit our bodies are.0
-
I work in a healthfood and supplement store. I have been there for about 7 years and personal trained. I have worked with many people. I talk to customers of all ages every day. The majority amount of people who's doctor advised them to take Vitamin D, B12, etc. Are NOT vegan or vegetarian. Yes, vegans absolutely need to make sure to get all essential nutrients and so do omnivores and carnivores. B12 came from the earth and soil before industrialization. There are a lot of things most people do not know about nutrients, food and how intrequit our bodies are.
I know your just trying to defend the vegan diet, which is perfectly ok, but vegans need to supplement B12 simply because B12 isn't readily available in plant food and yes many people become deficient in many vitamins and minerals for a variety of reasons which should tell you how important B12 is and it's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just needs to be identified and dealt with. We don't want to be deficient in B12, especially it's association with the brain but B12 can't be overstated in it's importance to our physiology. Also a heads up, older people 60 and up have the declining ability to absorb B12 so it might be important to get blood work if your older.
You mentioned that B12 comes from the earth and that is true and always will be, but the problem for humans is absorption. Humans actually have, to some degree, the ability for fermentation for the conversion of B12 but the catch is, that's done in the colon in humans which is downstream to our small intestines where we absorb nutrients, so were basically SOL.
What happens in ruminant animals is, they take in plant material and it's microbial fermented in the rumen of these animals, which is forward of the stomach and intestines and therefore can and does get absorbed into those animals muscles and organs and that's the why and where humans and our hominin ancestors have always obtained it, and that's not going to change in the foreseeable future. cheers.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »I work in a healthfood and supplement store. I have been there for about 7 years and personal trained. I have worked with many people. I talk to customers of all ages every day. The majority amount of people who's doctor advised them to take Vitamin D, B12, etc. Are NOT vegan or vegetarian. Yes, vegans absolutely need to make sure to get all essential nutrients and so do omnivores and carnivores. B12 came from the earth and soil before industrialization. There are a lot of things most people do not know about nutrients, food and how intrequit our bodies are.
I know your just trying to defend the vegan diet, which is perfectly ok, but vegans need to supplement B12 simply because B12 isn't readily available in plant food and yes many people become deficient in many vitamins and minerals for a variety of reasons which should tell you how important B12 is and it's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just needs to be identified and dealt with. We don't want to be deficient in B12, especially it's association with the brain but B12 can't be overstated in it's importance to our physiology. Also a heads up, older people 60 and up have the declining ability to absorb B12 so it might be important to get blood work if your older.
You mentioned that B12 comes from the earth and that is true and always will be, but the problem for humans is absorption. Humans actually have, to some degree, the ability for fermentation for the conversion of B12 but the catch is, that's done in the colon in humans which is downstream to our small intestines where we absorb nutrients, so were basically SOL.
What happens in ruminant animals is, they take in plant material and it's microbial fermented in the rumen of these animals, which is forward of the stomach and intestines and therefore can and does get absorbed into those animals muscles and organs and that's the why and where humans and our hominin ancestors have always obtained it, and that's not going to change in the foreseeable future. cheers.
I think that, while you have many good points and are well informed on many dietary concepts, you may have a bit of a blind spot with veganism. Pretty much all medical agencies agree that a well planned vegan diet can be safe and healthy. Just like any well planned diet. Carnivore diet enthusiasts have some ideas that are, frankly, insane. Almost equivalent to flat earth level denial. You saw some people who you perceived as not doing well on a vegan diet, so you decided the vegan diet must be unhealthy. But this simply isn't based in fact.
*Please note I will not be reading nor responding to replies, as I am simply stating an alternate viewpoint to your own and I recognize you have your own biases you are trying to defend.1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I work in a healthfood and supplement store. I have been there for about 7 years and personal trained. I have worked with many people. I talk to customers of all ages every day. The majority amount of people who's doctor advised them to take Vitamin D, B12, etc. Are NOT vegan or vegetarian. Yes, vegans absolutely need to make sure to get all essential nutrients and so do omnivores and carnivores. B12 came from the earth and soil before industrialization. There are a lot of things most people do not know about nutrients, food and how intrequit our bodies are.
I know your just trying to defend the vegan diet, which is perfectly ok, but vegans need to supplement B12 simply because B12 isn't readily available in plant food and yes many people become deficient in many vitamins and minerals for a variety of reasons which should tell you how important B12 is and it's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just needs to be identified and dealt with. We don't want to be deficient in B12, especially it's association with the brain but B12 can't be overstated in it's importance to our physiology. Also a heads up, older people 60 and up have the declining ability to absorb B12 so it might be important to get blood work if your older.
You mentioned that B12 comes from the earth and that is true and always will be, but the problem for humans is absorption. Humans actually have, to some degree, the ability for fermentation for the conversion of B12 but the catch is, that's done in the colon in humans which is downstream to our small intestines where we absorb nutrients, so were basically SOL.
What happens in ruminant animals is, they take in plant material and it's microbial fermented in the rumen of these animals, which is forward of the stomach and intestines and therefore can and does get absorbed into those animals muscles and organs and that's the why and where humans and our hominin ancestors have always obtained it, and that's not going to change in the foreseeable future. cheers.
I think that, while you have many good points and are well informed on many dietary concepts, you may have a bit of a blind spot with veganism. Pretty much all medical agencies agree that a well planned vegan diet can be safe and healthy. Just like any well planned diet. Carnivore diet enthusiasts have some ideas that are, frankly, insane. Almost equivalent to flat earth level denial. You saw some people who you perceived as not doing well on a vegan diet, so you decided the vegan diet must be unhealthy. But this simply isn't based in fact.
*Please note I will not be reading nor responding to replies, as I am simply stating an alternate viewpoint to your own and I recognize you have your own biases you are trying to defend.
Your funny, of course you'll be reading the responses.
What I actually said was "I wasn't a fan of veganism" and didn't say it was unhealthy but said " if a person understands all of the actual shortcomings it is viable to overcome those" And yes I have first hand knowledge, my sister, that suffered badly from not structuring it properly and I wouldn't call her being treated medically as someone I perceived as not doing well. Your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. If the lions share of advocates of veganism where more transparent, said what needs to be said medically instead of the mis and dis information that is so prevalent with emotion driving their recruiting motivational style then maybe, just maybe more than just young impressionable woman might consider the lifestyle and myself and others wouldn't need to criticize, and yes some vegan advocates do a very good job, but they are few and far between and that, is a good thing that they do, but again, just my biased opinion. Cheers1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
I eat vegetables, legumes, leafy greens, nuts, seeds and wholegrains. I use Vibrant Health Green Vibrance, Nutritional Yeast, Sea greens, Algae and I enjoy a morning liquid multi, and my doctors wanted me on D before I was vegan because of bone health. Sesame seeds, pumpkin seeds, watercress, white beans, walnuts, soybeans and almonds contain amino acids like glycine, arginine, methionine, omega 3 and protein. Watermelon supplies citrulline for arginine production,neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »It's ironic that a food that basically delivers all the essential vitamins and minerals is deemed unhealthy and recently vivified while a diet where essential vitamins and minerals are lacking for basic survival is deemed the way forward for a healthy population and it's not criticized, it's almost like there's a cognitive dissonance that has taken a religious slant from what I can see. Yeah, count me not a fan of veganism. cheers
I am by no means a carnivore...I'm an omnivore that eats a lot of plants. Abstaining from animal products for ethical reasons makes complete sense...for nutritional reasons, not so much. The human default setting is omnivorous, and there's a reason for that.
I'm a vegetarian, and completely agree with the bolded, though I'd expand it to ethical or social-benefits reasons as well as moral. (That's a fine distinction, a quibble, I know - but in my semantics, if it were a moral issue, I'd be more likely to proselytize for whatever the "right" moral choice was.)
Ease of adequate nutrition, especially in a fortunate developed-world context, isn't the only relevant consideration.
But even as a decades-long vegetarian myself, I do believe that the easiest way to get overall good nutrition is as an omnivore. If the main/only considerations are nutrition, health, or even weight loss . . . be an omnivore. I've said as much on quite a few threads here.
At the same time, I do also believe that some people see relatively quick and significant health benefits from a change to a fully plant-based diet. (I think most of them would see those benefits if they simply started getting much larger amounts of veggies/fruits alongside meats/fish. Most people - in the US at least - eat far too little of veggies/fruits for best results.)
Plant-based eating does require somewhat more attention to achieve good nutrition, including some supplementation, but there's been some (for my taste) over-dramatic hand-wringing about the difficulty of that. Maybe I just think committed people can be smarter than some other people think they can? I do tend to Pollyanna-ism sometimes. I also don't like drama, and catastrophizing (especially about other adults' diets) is kinda dramatic, IMO.
Frankly, most omnivores' actual eating patterns - here in the US, at least - really need some supplementation to achieve best outcomes, too. For them, and for people eating fully plant-based, there's some rational room to question whether supplementation really achieves as good an outcome as getting all nutrition from food. (I suspect it doesn't.) I don't think the longevity/health hit from that difference - at this stage of the science - is likely to be huge, though.
Quite frankly, I would rather abstain from animal and nourish with a WFPB diet, a few supplemental ingredients, and yes, it is also very much for ethical and environmental interest. I also do not do well with animal myself. I have way less inflammation, hardly if ever get the flu or sick and with autoimmune disease it helps me feel so much more alive. My digestion, energy and anxiety are greatly reduced this way.
I'm very aware that you're a well-informed and very health-conscious vegan who's perceived great personal benefits from that route. I don't normally question or argue with adults who adopt a non-mainstream way of eating and are clear-eyed about the issues and the requirements to do so in a healthy way.
I do argue - though "argue" is maybe too strong a term - with people here who are considering adopting vegetarianism or veganism purely for weight loss or health. My beliefs include a distinction between what is consistent with good health, and what is strictly required for good health in general population terms. Very many people IMO arrive here influenced by advocacy sites (some of which make unscientifically supported claims) and by some of the recent so-called "documentaries" that misrepresent the science. There is some shockingly bad information out in the blogosphere.
Nutrition science is significantly statistical. Our personal choices are individualized. IMO people making choices that are based on poor science should give things a re-think, especially if they give hints that they're switching to something that will be difficult for them to stick with well enough or long enough to achieve their intended personal goals. If they decide to proceed with a statistically unusual eating style, I'm an advocate of providing science-based information about how to do that in a healthful manner.
BTW: I'm not saying or hinting you're doing anything different from that, in terms of health advice. I think you're more committed to your choice of dietary style in various ways than I am committed to mine . . . even though I've been vegetarian for 48+ years, and not one of those "vegetarians" who "eats fish once in a while, and of course turkey on Thanksgiving."
Differences in humans' viewpoints are part of what makes life interesting, for me - quite sincerely.0 -
I work in a healthfood and supplement store. I have been there for about 7 years and personal trained. I have worked with many people. I talk to customers of all ages every day. The majority amount of people who's doctor advised them to take Vitamin D, B12, etc. Are NOT vegan or vegetarian. Yes, vegans absolutely need to make sure to get all essential nutrients and so do omnivores and carnivores. B12 came from the earth and soil before industrialization. There are a lot of things most people do not know about nutrients, food and how intrequit our bodies are.
The vast majority of people who are nutrient deficient and are told by their doctors that they need to supplement are eating a *kitten* diet overall and it has nothing to do with whether or not they're omnivorous or plant based or whatever.
An omnivorous person eating nothing but fast food and highly processed food has just as *kitten* of a diet as a vegan who's diet is largely highly processed foods that are "vegan"...this actually accounts for a lot of foods like french fries, potato chips, etc just to name a couple.
My dinner tonight is pan seared, sesame tuna steaks with avocado slices and sautéed asparagus...quite a bit different than, say, chicken nuggets and french fries. Omnivore doesn't automatically mean it's an unhealthy diet just as vegan or plant based doesn't mean it's automatically a healthy diet. I've seen both be complete and total *kitten* nutritionally. I'd think you would know that since you're flexing your resume here.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions