Vegetarians found more unhealthy. Interesting article.

Well, it's certainly not difficult to have more trouble getting the appropriate nutrients when you cut stuff out of your diet, so I'm not very surprised. Vegetarians have to work harder at balanced meals, and there are tons of vegetarians who seem to subsist on fries and white bread (especially young ones and those who are vegetarian for ethical reasons rather than health ones.) There's also a pretty substantial number of people with eating disorders who become "vegetarian" so it's easier to restrict food in public.

Ideally, everyone should be paying attention to their macro and micro nutrient intake and getting everything their bodies need, but vegetarians and other people who restrict their diets (paleo etc) need to be extra careful, obviously.

No need to throw paleo in with that. When you are eating an abundance of protein, fats, vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds it is not hard at all to meet both your micronutrient and macronutrient needs.

One main reason my Doctor recommends the Paleo Lifestyle to his patients to get them off medications and just eating real food.

I should have known I'd get the paleo police on my case here...they're like Betelgeuse except you only have to say the word once for them to appear.

Yes, whole foods are good. Restricting your diet from a huge number of foods can be bad if you're not careful.

I'm not the Paleo police. I just don't appreciate people stating that you will be deficient eating this way.

Eating this way is what DID correct my deficiencies.

I certainly didn't say that you WOULD be deficient, I said that any diet restricting a large amount of foods can make it more DIFFICULT and requires more effort and planning than an unrestricted one. You really don't have to jump on the defensive about it. Any time you remove something from a diet (yes, even grains) you have to replace it with something and that takes some thought.

I'm not attacking anyone here, jeez. And people wonder why so much of the MFP population makes fun of people with militant ideas about food.

There are many more university and hospital studies that say the opposite. Plus, you have to find out who funds that magazine and who funds the person or organization that wrote the article. There's a lot of money spent every DAY by the cattle and dairy industries to discredit people who promote not eating their products. It usually comes down to economics. And big corporate concerns don't want you messing with their profit whether it's animal products or other consumer goods.

The study was not from that magazine the study was out of Austria which I don't think has a big corporate meat industry.

Scientific journals can have backers that want to promote certain studies over others, and meat can be imported, so it makes sense to look at where the funding came from.

The problem with every pro-veg*n paper/study I've seen (regardless of credibility) is that they compare to the Standard American/Western Diet. That's a high bar when it comes to health. *eyeroll*

That said, please remember your stated standards the next time The China Study or Forks Over Knives are cited in a conversation as support for veg*nism.

Ummmmm, I do, that's why I brought up the point of looking into funding sources. The fact that I'm vegetarian has nothing to do with the fact that I know how to decide if a scientific article is credible. My Biology degree can take credit for that.

Sorry, my attempt to make that not so harsh didn't work too well. It was also more of a general thing, not saying that you, specifically, were doing that.

It just gets annoying when the veg*n evangelists (not necessarily you, specifically) use The China Study and Forks Over Knives (as well as other "resources" with obviously vegan agendas) as compelling evidence that veg*n is the way everyone should go, and then turn around and say that studies suggesting veg*n may not be so healthy, or ones supporting eating meat need to be self-funded, double-blind lab studies or they don't count, and anything less is "confirmation bias" or otherwise invalid, you know?

There are many more university and hospital studies that say the opposite. Plus, you have to find out who funds that magazine and who funds the person or organization that wrote the article. There's a lot of money spent every DAY by the cattle and dairy industries to discredit people who promote not eating their products. It usually comes down to economics. And big corporate concerns don't want you messing with their profit whether it's animal products or other consumer goods.

The study was not from that magazine the study was out of Austria which I don't think has a big corporate meat industry.

Scientific journals can have backers that want to promote certain studies over others, and meat can be imported, so it makes sense to look at where the funding came from.

The problem with every pro-veg*n paper/study I've seen (regardless of credibility) is that they compare to the Standard American/Western Diet. That's a high bar when it comes to health. *eyeroll*

That said, please remember your stated standards the next time The China Study or Forks Over Knives are cited in a conversation as support for veg*nism.

Ummmmm, I do, that's why I brought up the point of looking into funding sources. The fact that I'm vegetarian has nothing to do with the fact that I know how to decide if a scientific article is credible. My Biology degree can take credit for that.

Sorry, my attempt to make that not so harsh didn't work too well. It was also more of a general thing, not saying that you, specifically, were doing that.

It just gets annoying when the veg*n evangelists (not necessarily you, specifically) use The China Study and Forks Over Knives (as well as other "resources" with obviously vegan agendas) as compelling evidence that veg*n is the way everyone should go, and then turn around and say that studies suggesting veg*n may not be so healthy, or ones supporting eating meat need to be self-funded, double-blind lab studies or they don't count, and anything less is "confirmation bias" or otherwise invalid, you know?

Yea, I get it. I had to delete a couple sentences because I'm not holier-than-thou, and get defensive when people just assume I am. But I agree, people need to be more educated on how to take in information, decide if its valid, and go from there without getting evangelical. Taking life THAT seriously is just a recipe for unhappiness.

There 2 types of vegetarians.. those that eat right ( vegetables, no dairy, no excessive carbs) and those who just don't want to eat meat.. I know both types.. My friend is a vegetarian and she hates vegetables.. so naturally, she is overweight because all she eats is processed junk food and dairy. My sister in law is a vegetarian, and you don't get any healthier then her... she takes really good care of her body and eats the way man was intended to eat... If your a vegetarian, you have to learn how to get your protein.... and in most cases its from fish and beans.. But there are unhealthy meat eaters and vegetarians, its all about choices in food.

Fish isn't vegetarian.

However, I do agree with you that there are definitely two types of vegetarians; the ones that pay attention to proper nutrition and adequate protein, and those who don't. It truly makes a huge difference in a lot of the health issues that can happen, but don't have to happen.

As with ANY diet though, people can be negligent and become deficient in one or more nutrients whether they choose to eat meat or not. I know people who eat meat that are severely anaemic, yet I'm vegetarian and my iron levels are perfect. Any diet is capable of acquiring deficiencies if it's unbalanced. It really depends on each individual's choices.

Well, it's certainly not difficult to have more trouble getting the appropriate nutrients when you cut stuff out of your diet, so I'm not very surprised. Vegetarians have to work harder at balanced meals, and there are tons of vegetarians who seem to subsist on fries and white bread (especially young ones and those who are vegetarian for ethical reasons rather than health ones.) There's also a pretty substantial number of people with eating disorders who become "vegetarian" so it's easier to restrict food in public.

Ideally, everyone should be paying attention to their macro and micro nutrient intake and getting everything their bodies need, but vegetarians and other people who restrict their diets (paleo etc) need to be extra careful, obviously.

No need to throw paleo in with that. When you are eating an abundance of protein, fats, vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds it is not hard at all to meet both your micronutrient and macronutrient needs.

One main reason my Doctor recommends the Paleo Lifestyle to his patients to get them off medications and just eating real food.

I should have known I'd get the paleo police on my case here...they're like Betelgeuse except you only have to say the word once for them to appear.

Yes, whole foods are good. Restricting your diet from a huge number of foods can be bad if you're not careful.

I'm not the Paleo police. I just don't appreciate people stating that you will be deficient eating this way.

Eating this way is what DID correct my deficiencies.

I certainly didn't say that you WOULD be deficient, I said that any diet restricting a large amount of foods can make it more DIFFICULT and requires more effort and planning than an unrestricted one. You really don't have to jump on the defensive about it. Any time you remove something from a diet (yes, even grains) you have to replace it with something and that takes some thought.

I'm not attacking anyone here, jeez. And people wonder why so much of the MFP population makes fun of people with militant ideas about food.

As someone else mentioned, when you remove dairy, grains and legumes from your way of eating you replace it with fruits and vegetables that are more nutrient dense naturally.

It is damn near impossible to be nutrient deficient with eating this way. Grains and beans are not the nutritious items they are portrayed to be unless they are soaked and sprouted and fermented.

Anytime you have to heavily process something to make it edible, then add back in nutrients that were stripped out is not something I want to put in my body any longer.

I want to eat something that I can kill and eat (yes I like raw and nearly raw meat), pluck it out of the ground or pick off a tree and eat it. Whether I cook said items or not is up to me, but I prefer to eat stuff that I can eat without cooking it.

Raw liver, spinach salad and a bowl of berries is a grand meal to me and very nutrient dense.

You're not really on the subject anymore...

And trust me, plenty of people who say they're "paleo" end up making bad choices. Bacon isn't a great substitute for toast, actually, when you consume it in large quantities.

I'm glad you're happy and healthy about your diet, but my point stands for the population. There are healthy vegetarians and healthy paleo eaters, but there are just as many cheese pizza/prime rib for every meal people out there, unfortunately, and it was those to which I was referring when stating that eating a restrictive diet requires some effort to do properly. If you're doing it properly, that's awesome, but not everyone is.

Well, it's certainly not difficult to have more trouble getting the appropriate nutrients when you cut stuff out of your diet, so I'm not very surprised. Vegetarians have to work harder at balanced meals, and there are tons of vegetarians who seem to subsist on fries and white bread (especially young ones and those who are vegetarian for ethical reasons rather than health ones.) There's also a pretty substantial number of people with eating disorders who become "vegetarian" so it's easier to restrict food in public.

Ideally, everyone should be paying attention to their macro and micro nutrient intake and getting everything their bodies need, but vegetarians and other people who restrict their diets (paleo etc) need to be extra careful, obviously.

No need to throw paleo in with that. When you are eating an abundance of protein, fats, vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds it is not hard at all to meet both your micronutrient and macronutrient needs.

One main reason my Doctor recommends the Paleo Lifestyle to his patients to get them off medications and just eating real food.

I should have known I'd get the paleo police on my case here...they're like Betelgeuse except you only have to say the word once for them to appear.

Yes, whole foods are good. Restricting your diet from a huge number of foods can be bad if you're not careful.

I'm not the Paleo police. I just don't appreciate people stating that you will be deficient eating this way.

Eating this way is what DID correct my deficiencies.

I certainly didn't say that you WOULD be deficient, I said that any diet restricting a large amount of foods can make it more DIFFICULT and requires more effort and planning than an unrestricted one. You really don't have to jump on the defensive about it. Any time you remove something from a diet (yes, even grains) you have to replace it with something and that takes some thought.

I'm not attacking anyone here, jeez. And people wonder why so much of the MFP population makes fun of people with militant ideas about food.

As someone else mentioned, when you remove dairy, grains and legumes from your way of eating you replace it with fruits and vegetables that are more nutrient dense naturally.

It is damn near impossible to be nutrient deficient with eating this way. Grains and beans are not the nutritious items they are portrayed to be unless they are soaked and sprouted and fermented.

Anytime you have to heavily process something to make it edible, then add back in nutrients that were stripped out is not something I want to put in my body any longer.

I want to eat something that I can kill and eat (yes I like raw and nearly raw meat), pluck it out of the ground or pick off a tree and eat it. Whether I cook said items or not is up to me, but I prefer to eat stuff that I can eat without cooking it.

Raw liver, spinach salad and a bowl of berries is a grand meal to me and very nutrient dense.

What the heck does "nutrient dense" even mean?

It's different nutrients, not MORE nutrients.

Science FTW
[img][/img]

Everyone takes good and bad photos. Genetics and luck of the draw are a big factor in beauty too.

Eh, the brunette looks healthier to me.

yup and she'd get smashed 10x out 10 over the blonde

My first comment was very moderate and said that "people [who eat more restrictive diets] need to be extra careful". Which is completely, 100% accurate. I am actually astounded that anyone would disagree with that, especially someone who obviously IS careful and does make an effort to eat well.

seriously...

To personalize this and make it sound more offensive and judgemental and personal I will use myself as an example. As an omnivore with no foods avoided, I can eat ANYTHING you can eat. But you CAN'T eat all the foods I CAN eat if your diet is restricted in anyway.

Therefore it is logical considering a healthy diet requires nutrients from a variety of food sources (if getting them "as nature intended") that the less restricted diet is ALWAYS the better choice for overall health...

sorry, but logic is logic...

Yep.

Not sure how the other poster meant it, but I like this definition:

"Nutrient density is a measure of the amount of nutrients a food contains in comparison to the number of calories. A food is more nutrient dense when the level of nutrients is high in relationship to the number of calories the food contains. "

Source: World's Healthiest Foods

How do you define "amount of nutrients"? You're just shifting the definition. Things get murky when you realize that fat, sugar, protein, fiber, and starch are all nutrients.

My first comment was very moderate and said that "people [who eat more restrictive diets] need to be extra careful". Which is completely, 100% accurate. I am actually astounded that anyone would disagree with that, especially someone who obviously IS careful and does make an effort to eat well.

I admit I'm tired of the lifestyle preachers generally here, but I can't believe how panty-knotted people get about their diets. It's worse than religion or politics sometimes.

Ideally, everyone should be paying attention to their macro and micro nutrient intake and getting everything their bodies need, but vegetarians and other people who restrict their diets (paleo etc) need to be extra careful, obviously.

So what does "extra careful" mean, exactly? I understand it in the context that veg*ns need to, because they have to actually work out what plants have what amino acids, so they can make sure they're getting them all (arguably not that difficult, but can take a little education beyond the usual nutrition information education), and they have to go out of their way to get reliable sources of B-12. However, in the context of Paleo, it's not even as hard as the protein thing with veg*ns. It's no different than anyone else trying to eat healthy by doing things like building better salads (spinach and kale instead of iceburg lettuce, etc). The only difference is that grains, legumes, and possibly dairy aren't part of the equation. The spinach alone will get you the calcium, fiber, and other nutrients that all three of the cut out foods provided.

Your original comment was moderated, yes, though PaleoPath4Lyfe and I both disagree that it's 100% correct. Your response to PaleoPath4Lyfe, however, came off as snide and rather defensive (moreso than their initial response, IMO). It's the response in which you start calling people names that I was referring to.