Wow, this kinda went south! Simma down ya'll! I actually have a vegan-paleo friend who is a certified CrossFit trainer, and damn she's healthy!

PETA is the worst organization on the planet!! their tactics are inhumane. I am an animal lover, but I would never put any animal before a human, especially the animals that I choose to eat!!

crop agriculture in the absence of animals (aka nutrient cycle) destroys soil. Man made fertilizers and pesticides, genetically modified organisms, plus food politics (control/dominance/patenting/loss of diversity of crops) will soon be the end of our food supply. Most food now sickens, rather than nourishes, and it's by design.

This is what irks me about pro-vegetarian/vegan arguments claiming that plant agriculture is less environmentally destructive than animal agriculture. They obviously don't know about the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, caused by fertilizer run-off down the Mississippi from the corn mono-crops in the Mid West.

http://science.time.com/2013/06/19/this-years-gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone-could-be-the-biggest-on-record/

People: please stop taking a difference of opinion as "hate" and personal attack. I completely understand that I came off strong and that I have a less than flowery writing style, but I am not hating or attacking anyone. I will speak out strongly when a particular lifestyle has the potential to harm- especially one that is used to shame young people. I agree to disagree that a vegan diet can be healthy. Not for the long term. The proof is in the fact that there were ZERO vegan societies in all of human history. It's a frightening experiment and enough former vegans have weighed in on the long term results to health that I cannot accept it as a healthy option for anyone. Personal choice? Sure. Ethical? No.

A crucial part of any experiment is having a proper amount of time to realize and document results. When it comes to highly variable experiments involving human lifestyle changes that can mean multiple generations. So if the vegan lifestyle is an experiment then why not give those who are practicing it enough time to show the results instead of decrying it as "dangerous" and "unsustainable" after a relatively short period of time? I have seen people who advocate for the paleo lifestyle ask for the same consideration.

Also, I would be surprised if you could not find just as many people who tried paleo and found it to be "dangerous" or "unsustainable" as the former vegans you keep mentioning.

It seems to me that your opinions about the vegan lifestyle are based on anecdotal evidence and personal bias with very few (if any) relevant facts to back them up. That's fine and I certainly don't begrudge you but your alarmist tone certainly doesn't help anything; least of which the position you advocate.

People: please stop taking a difference of opinion as "hate" and personal attack. I completely understand that I came off strong and that I have a less than flowery writing style, but I am not hating or attacking anyone. I will speak out strongly when a particular lifestyle has the potential to harm- especially one that is used to shame young people. I agree to disagree that a vegan diet can be healthy. Not for the long term. The proof is in the fact that there were ZERO vegan societies in all of human history. It's a frightening experiment and enough former vegans have weighed in on the long term results to health that I cannot accept it as a healthy option for anyone. Personal choice? Sure. Ethical? No.

A crucial part of any experiment is having a proper amount of time to realize and document results. When it comes to highly variable experiments involving human lifestyle changes that can mean multiple generations. So if the vegan lifestyle is an experiment then why not give those who are practicing it enough time to show the results instead of decrying it as "dangerous" and "unsustainable" after a relatively short period of time? I have seen people who advocate for the paleo lifestyle ask for the same consideration.

Also, I would be surprised if you could not find just as many people who tried paleo and found it to be "dangerous" or "unsustainable" as the former vegans you keep mentioning.

It seems to me that your opinions about the vegan lifestyle are based on anecdotal evidence and personal bias with very few (if any) relevant facts to back them up. That's fine and I certainly don't begrudge you but your alarmist tone certainly doesn't help anything; least of which the position you advocate.

So, it's not "relevant" and "anecdotal" that no human society in our entire history survived on a vegan diet? That's the most relevant thing I can think of when talking about whether a diet is healthy (biologically appropriate) or not.

If I were in a vegan forum I would understand why my view is unacceptable. I am not in a vegan forum.

I would venture to guess the lifestyle which benefits the most from modern technology and modern agriculture is the vegan lifestyle. Simply put, it would have been much more difficult if not impossible to be a vegan back when you had to worry about the seasonality of crops or being able to preserve them for longer periods of time.

Think about it like this; as humans don't have wings it is not "biologically appropriate" for humans to fly yet technology allows for that to happen to our great benefit. Science/technology/knowledge/understanding allows us to reach beyond our biological limitations and take advantage of life in a way that wasn't possible for our ancestors. Perhaps the vegan lifestyle fits into that category. Just because something is new doesn't mean that it is bad.

Eh, it kind of is when one of the biggest reasons people go vegan is ethical and environmental. This is particularly the case when they eat foods that have to be flown in (in addition to the already-mentioned fact that the act of farming, in general, kills untold amounts of soil organisms and small animals, or that even eating plants requires that one kill and/or maim and/or deprive potential life of an organism). If you don't live near the ocean, you can't get sea vegetables locally, and therefore require the burning of fossil fuels and the killing of animals (the death of birds caught in jet engines, or hit by trucks) to get your food. Same goes for avocados and chia if you don't live in Central America or near the Mexican border (if you're American), coconuts if you don't live in Thailand or the coastal areas in which they grow, or pineapples if you don't live in South America (among a host of other foods). Then, there's the fact that any soy- or corn-based product that you buy (from America, at least) that's not organic is genetically modified monoculture (the organic might be monoculture, too, I'm not sure), which does a number on the local environment and depletes the soil to the point that fertilizers are required (which introduces a number of other issues).

I would venture to guess the lifestyle which benefits the most from modern technology and modern agriculture is the vegan lifestyle. Simply put, it would have been much more difficult if not impossible to be a vegan back when you had to worry about the seasonality of crops or being able to preserve them for longer periods of time.

Think about it like this; as humans don't have wings it is not "biologically appropriate" for humans to fly yet technology allows for that to happen to our great benefit. Science/technology/knowledge/understanding allows us to reach beyond our biological limitations and take advantage of life in a way that wasn't possible for our ancestors. Perhaps the vegan lifestyle fits into that category. Just because something is new doesn't mean that it is bad.

Eh, it kind of is when one of the biggest reasons people go vegan is ethical and environmental. This is particularly the case when they eat foods that have to be flown in (in addition to the already-mentioned fact that the act of farming, in general, kills untold amounts of soil organisms and small animals, or that even eating plants requires that one kill and/or maim and/or deprive potential life of an organism). If you don't live near the ocean, you can't get sea vegetables locally, and therefore require the burning of fossil fuels and the killing of animals (the death of birds caught in jet engines, or hit by trucks) to get your food. Same goes for avocados and chia if you don't live in Central America or near the Mexican border (if you're American), coconuts if you don't live in Thailand or the coastal areas in which they grow, or pineapples if you don't live in South America (among a host of other foods). Then, there's the fact that any soy- or corn-based product that you buy (from America, at least) that's not organic is genetically modified monoculture (the organic might be monoculture, too, I'm not sure), which does a number on the local environment and depletes the soil to the point that fertilizers are required (which introduces a number of other issues).

None of this has anything to do with whether or not the vegan lifestyle is healthy or if it is a "dangerous" way of eating which is the point I am trying to argue against.

BTW, all of these things you mention can just as easily apply to the effects of the paleo diet as well. (I think you may be trying to make that point and if so I apologize for being redundant.)

But whatever, I am sure there are some vegans which are huge ****s and incredible hypocrites. You can find that anywhere (including the paleo community) so it doesn't serve anyone to get all high and mighty about what this person does or what that person does or whether being vegan is awesome or stupid. Who cares? As far as your average Wal-Mart/McDonald's customer is concerned all vegans/vegetarians/paleos/primals are stupidly missing the boat on $1 cheeseburgers and tacos.