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.

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.

I find it interesting the arguing over an epidemiological study that proves nothing. There were no controls adopted for any of the groups. It was basically, I'm a vegetarian, I'm a carnivore, I eat everything, and I'm a cannibal! They didn't monitor food or provide the meals. All these studies are for is to possibly create an actual study where they do have more controls to test if the perceived outcome of the epidemiological study holds water.

It's an observational study that can establish correlations. It's interesting and provides fodder for further studies.

I find it interesting the arguing over an epidemiological study that proves nothing. There were no controls adopted for any of the groups. It was basically, I'm a vegetarian, I'm a carnivore, I eat everything, and I'm a cannibal! They didn't monitor food or provide the meals. All these studies are for is to possibly create an actual study where they do have more controls to test if the perceived outcome of the epidemiological study holds water.

It's an observational study that can establish correlations. It's interesting and provides fodder for further studies.

I do agree with that. It's just not conclusive. I'm more referring to the outrage by the people getting offended and claiming other non-vegetarian diets will kill you dead where you stand.

Eh there are fat people who are meat eaters, and there are fat people who are vegetarians.

There are ALSO healthy meat eaters, and healthy vegetarians.

Eat whatever diet works for you and leave the others be.
why are there so many "my diet is better than yours" arguments on this site??

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.

"Extra careful" means you can't take being "paleo" as an excuse to eat 12oz steaks for every meal, in the same way that a vegetarian can't just live on ice cream. Simply not eating meat or not eating grains doesn't mean that you're eating abundant vegetables or the appropriate proportion of fat and protein. Cutting out grain doesn't assume you're going to fill it with a variety of better choices necessarily. Thus, careful.

I'm sorry I'm not sorry about referring to someone as the "paleo police" but...I'm not sorry. Being critical is allowed. You can go ahead and call me the "varied-choices-are -great-police" if you want. I don't feel that criticizing someone's diet criticizes them personally, so I promise if you do not to get mad or claim you called me names. I just think it's funny that as soon as you mention "paleo" anywhere people freak out.

Come on. I seriously didn't mean to get everyone's dander up. That's more of a Friday afternoon activity than a Thursday, but I guess I must have been extra bored. Maybe I'm hangry from not eating enough raw liver and berries.

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.

And most non-starchy vegetables beat out grains, legumes, and dairy, calorie-for-calorie (and in many cases, even gram for gram), in pretty much every area but carbs (maybe) and starch. So, even with your semantic arguing, vegetables and meat still win overall.

http://rajganpath.com/2010/07/31/lets-talk-numbers/
http://www.healthhabits.ca/2009/07/17/nutrition-deathmatch-fruits-vegetables-v-s-grains/
http://www.nutritionalwellness.com/archives/2009/nov/11_seaman.php
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/guide/calcium-vitamin-d-foods
http://greatist.com/health/18-surprising-dairy-free-sources-calcium
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/calcium-and-milk/

As long as you can hit your macro and calorie goal then why obsess over where someone chooses to get those calories?

I've been a vegetarian all my life. I used to be fat and miserable because all I ate was cheese, bread, pasta, and ice cream. It's easy to be unhealthy as a vegetarian. Now my diet is full of fruits and veggies and I'm obviously in much better shape!

This except I became a vegetarian in 1995.

Eh there are fat people who are meat eaters, and there are fat people who are vegetarians.

There are ALSO healthy meat eaters, and healthy vegetarians.

Eat whatever diet works for you and leave the others be.
why are there so many "my diet is better than yours" arguments on this site??

I didn't care until the whole "your diet causes cancer" (feces) started appearing on my internets...

This and "this is the way humans were meant to eat"

This is the issue I have as well.

Go back 10 or 15 years, I went through phases of being vegetarian or vegan (I'm an omnivore nowadays and I feel better for it). And back then it was seen as primarily an ethical choice, and the information on it was like "it's possible to be healthy on a vegan diet but you must be careful about getting enough nutrients" and "here are the nutrients that it's hard to get without eating meat, and here's a list of vegetarian/vegan foods that contain each one" and "it's not possible to get enough vitamin B12 and D2 from a vegan diet, however many vegan food products are fortified with these, so ensure you're either eating fortified foods or taking a supplement" There was some mention of health benefits, but they were presented in context and alongside statements such as "the health benefits of the vegetarian diet could be due to eating more vegetables rather than due to cutting out meat"

but nowadays there are 2 trends that I find disturbing:

1. exaggerated and even fabricated reports of health benefits, combined with demonising of the omnivorous diet. Rather than being presented as an ethical choice that can be healthy if you're careful to include all the nutrients it's hard to get on a herbivorous diet and supplement where necessary, it's now presented by some very vocal vegan groups as 100% necessary for human health and meat is killing people etc etc etc... these days i come across far more vegetarians and vegans who are doing this because they believe it's healthier than an omnivorous diet and many even say they don't have moral objections to eating animals. And some who have concerns about animal welfare but health is the primary reason. What is so concerning when people are switching to diets that are difficult to adhere to and difficult to get enough nutrition from for health reasons which are greatly exaggerated.... that's not right.

2. denying that humans are omnivores - rather than adapting a herbivorous diet to meet the nutritional requirements of an omnivore, they claim that humans aren't supposed to be omnivorous and that the natural diet of humans is herbivorous, and they completely rewrite what they consider to be a balanced diet for humans to make it fit the nutritional profile of a herbivorous diet. This is totally putting the cart before the horse... 80/10/10 is a classic example because 80/10/10 is a macronutrient ratio that's easy to hit on a herbivorous diet, so rather than actually put in the effort to adjust the diet to be more balanced and closer to what humans actually need, they promote the idea that 80/10/10 is ideal and humans are really herbivores. Again, this is totally not right, it's basically lying to people about what their nutritional needs are to promote an unbalanced diet.

So anyway, those are my issues with the way vegetarian and vegan diets are presented nowadays... I have nothing against vegetarianism or veganism as ethical choices........ but all the pseudoscience associated with them that's lying to people and scaring them into becoming vegan or vegetarian.