Plant based people, where ya at?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »So, it sounds like by plant based you mean vegan and not just a diet that has mostly plants as a base, correct? And 100% plant based includes occasional ice cream?
When I use the term "plant based", I refer to consuming only plants. Thus, one's diet is based of plants. Vegan is a lifestyle which goes beyond one's diet. I myself am vegan which means I am conscious of every purchase I make. Wether that'd be avoiding items that contain animal by products like leather, silk, or feathers. Animal testing is also a no-no. I'm aware it's practically impossible to not impact animals but I try to the best of my abilities.
Ice cream is ok as long as it's diary free. Many companies are producing vegan friendly ice cream nowadays. Sorbet is also another option. I recently discovered frozen yogurt chains who carry sorbet. Nothing beats freshly served sorbet on a hot Summer day!1 -
I've never taken plant based to mean vegan or vegetarian. I see those as stricter versions of plant based. The definitions I've seen allowed for animal products and meat, but as long as the large majority of one's diet is plant based, they would be under that umbrella. I consider myself plant based, even though I eat animals & animal products. Most of my intake comes from plants though.
Plant based is consider a diet which consists of only plants. Veganism is a lifestyle which goes beyond what's on one's plate.
Personally, I wouldn't deem you as "plant based" although your diet is comprised of mostly plants. I'd say you're a top tier omni! You probably have a better diet than most vegetarians lollivingleanlivingclean wrote: »Plant based is such a vague term... Grain is plant based, sugar is plant based, oils are plant based, fruit and vegies are plant based, alcohol and many drugs are plant based.
Dairy, meat, eggs... From animals that survive on plants...
I'm not "plant based" but I eat around 1.5kgs vegies and fruit a day...
Vegetarian and vegan does not equate to healthy! A majority of my time as a vegan is known as a "junk food vegan". lol Basically, I ate anything as long as it was plant based: fried crap, baked goods, alcohol. Not a huge fan of fake meat and cheese though, don't find them appetizing.
Congrats on your fruit and veg intake! Another top tier omni
0 -
N_Ravenhill wrote: »Plant based for almost 5 years. I have tried almost every vegan/vegetarian diet under the sun in that time. But, long story short and a medical sob story or two, I suppose I am a reluctant pescetarian (lacto-ovo vegetarian + fish Oil) with goals to make it back to vegan, some day.
As long as you're aware of your animal by product intake, you'll be ok. I was pescatarian for 5 years before transitioning to a plant base diet. For awhile I thought I'd deprive myself of something if I dropped meat and diary. Despite not knowing what I'd miss, I was reluctant to change. My only regret about veganism is not switching over sooner.
I'm not a doctor or licensed nutritionist so I can't give you proper medical advice. I do hope your medical condition subside with a plant based diet ❤️
0 -
Grilled chicken eaters live just as long as anyone else. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/vegetarian-diets-are-healthy-but-they-dont-help-you-live-longer/2016/01/11/863dfaf8-b551-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html?utm_term=.2e68a75eb87f
Preaching that veganism is better for health is not necessary.0 -
Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.1 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.2 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.2 -
Dunno about that one either. "Plant-exclusive" sounds like someone who excludes plants!
English is hard.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.
Point taken. I was simply providing a list of things that it could fall under, from a purely technical standpoint. I know vegans who have taken up the WFPB banner, since it doesn't carry the same baggage as 'vegan'. Those are also what I would not consider strictly 'ethical' vegans, either. They do avoid all animal products, but believe that the health angle is superior.0 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.
Point taken. I was simply providing a list of things that it could fall under, from a purely technical standpoint. I know vegans who have taken up the WFPB banner, since it doesn't carry the same baggage as 'vegan'.
Not to seem contentious, but that is what I was pointing out -- if someone is limiting their diet to plants but engaging in other forms of animal exploitation (what many people mean now when they say "plant-based," then vegan wouldn't be an accurate term for them). A vegan could be WFPB, but someone isn't vegan simply because they are WFPB -- if that makes sense. It doesn't fall under veganism from a "technical standpoint."
In my experience, "plant-based" is a term that people are using to describe avoiding (or limiting) animal products in the diet. If they aren't going to use "plant-based" because some people don't like it, we'll need another term.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.
Point taken. I was simply providing a list of things that it could fall under, from a purely technical standpoint. I know vegans who have taken up the WFPB banner, since it doesn't carry the same baggage as 'vegan'.
Not to seem contentious, but that is what I was pointing out -- if someone is limiting their diet to plants but engaging in other forms of animal exploitation (what many people mean now when they say "plant-based," then vegan wouldn't be an accurate term for them). A vegan could be WFPB, but someone isn't vegan simply because they are WFPB -- if that makes sense. It doesn't fall under veganism from a "technical standpoint."
In my experience, "plant-based" is a term that people are using to describe avoiding (or limiting) animal products in the diet. If they aren't going to use "plant-based" because some people don't like it, we'll need another term.
Vegetarian seems to be an established term for that already. Is it not?0 -
I think the key may be adjectives.janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.
Point taken. I was simply providing a list of things that it could fall under, from a purely technical standpoint. I know vegans who have taken up the WFPB banner, since it doesn't carry the same baggage as 'vegan'.
Not to seem contentious, but that is what I was pointing out -- if someone is limiting their diet to plants but engaging in other forms of animal exploitation (what many people mean now when they say "plant-based," then vegan wouldn't be an accurate term for them). A vegan could be WFPB, but someone isn't vegan simply because they are WFPB -- if that makes sense. It doesn't fall under veganism from a "technical standpoint."
In my experience, "plant-based" is a term that people are using to describe avoiding (or limiting) animal products in the diet. If they aren't going to use "plant-based" because some people don't like it, we'll need another term.
At the moment, people say 'plant-based' willy-nilly, as a shorthand. I'm all for shorthand; it's a device to make communication more efficient. But in this case, it's not working because sometimes they mean they are entirely avoiding animal products. Sometimes they mean they are severely limiting them.
I give you...
*drumroll*
the words...
partially and wholly. "Partially PB" and "wholly PB" would sort out the misunderstandings.
1 -
Not so much. Vegetarianism is most commonly used as a shorthand for "lacto-ovo-vegetarian", someone who doesn't eat meat, fish, fowl or any other animal products, except for dairy products and eggs. Such a dietary lifestyle is generally an ethical position, but not always. Most of the vegetarians I know are ethical vegetarians and so don't use animal products like leather or soap with tallow in.accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.
Point taken. I was simply providing a list of things that it could fall under, from a purely technical standpoint. I know vegans who have taken up the WFPB banner, since it doesn't carry the same baggage as 'vegan'.
Not to seem contentious, but that is what I was pointing out -- if someone is limiting their diet to plants but engaging in other forms of animal exploitation (what many people mean now when they say "plant-based," then vegan wouldn't be an accurate term for them). A vegan could be WFPB, but someone isn't vegan simply because they are WFPB -- if that makes sense. It doesn't fall under veganism from a "technical standpoint."
In my experience, "plant-based" is a term that people are using to describe avoiding (or limiting) animal products in the diet. If they aren't going to use "plant-based" because some people don't like it, we'll need another term.
Vegetarian seems to be an established term for that already. Is it not?
1 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.
Point taken. I was simply providing a list of things that it could fall under, from a purely technical standpoint. I know vegans who have taken up the WFPB banner, since it doesn't carry the same baggage as 'vegan'.
Not to seem contentious, but that is what I was pointing out -- if someone is limiting their diet to plants but engaging in other forms of animal exploitation (what many people mean now when they say "plant-based," then vegan wouldn't be an accurate term for them). A vegan could be WFPB, but someone isn't vegan simply because they are WFPB -- if that makes sense. It doesn't fall under veganism from a "technical standpoint."
In my experience, "plant-based" is a term that people are using to describe avoiding (or limiting) animal products in the diet. If they aren't going to use "plant-based" because some people don't like it, we'll need another term.
Vegetarian seems to be an established term for that already. Is it not?
I wouldn't have any objection to someone using that, but (at least in the US), it has a strong association with lacto-ovo vegetarianism. So if someone was committed to avoiding the consumption of dairy and eggs, it may not work for them personally as a way to describe their diet to others.0 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
I think the key may be adjectives.janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.
Point taken. I was simply providing a list of things that it could fall under, from a purely technical standpoint. I know vegans who have taken up the WFPB banner, since it doesn't carry the same baggage as 'vegan'.
Not to seem contentious, but that is what I was pointing out -- if someone is limiting their diet to plants but engaging in other forms of animal exploitation (what many people mean now when they say "plant-based," then vegan wouldn't be an accurate term for them). A vegan could be WFPB, but someone isn't vegan simply because they are WFPB -- if that makes sense. It doesn't fall under veganism from a "technical standpoint."
In my experience, "plant-based" is a term that people are using to describe avoiding (or limiting) animal products in the diet. If they aren't going to use "plant-based" because some people don't like it, we'll need another term.
At the moment, people say 'plant-based' willy-nilly, as a shorthand. I'm all for shorthand; it's a device to make communication more efficient. But in this case, it's not working because sometimes they mean they are entirely avoiding animal products. Sometimes they mean they are severely limiting them.
I give you...
*drumroll*
the words...
partially and wholly. "Partially PB" and "wholly PB" would sort out the misunderstandings.
I think you solved it!1 -
Um, may I just clarify a very, very, very important point?
Partially and wholly are adverbs and I have no idea why I put "adjectives" before.
As you were.
*walks off in shame*2 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Dunno about that one either. "Plant-exclusive" sounds like someone who excludes plants!
English is hard.
Plant monogamous.
(I don't really care, I'm used to plant-based as shorthand for what OP used it to mean, just trying to help.) ;-)3 -
I like it!lemurcat12 wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Dunno about that one either. "Plant-exclusive" sounds like someone who excludes plants!
English is hard.
Plant monogamous.
(I don't really care, I'm used to plant-based as shorthand for what OP used it to mean, just trying to help.) ;-)
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »Plenty of vegan, vegetarian, and related eaters around here.
I'll echo the comments on the term "plant-based", however. It's misleading and actually quite condescending when you break it down. The implication is that if your diet doesn't match, it's lacking in plants, and therefore not as healthy, which is patently false. I eat plenty of plants, but also lots of other foods that fuel my daily performance, whatever those might be.
Call it what it is: vegetarian, vegan, etc. Hell, call it plant-exclusive. Plant-based is a non-starter.
Vegan wouldn't be an appropriate term for someone who avoids animal products in their diet but is fine with other types of animal exploitation. Plant-based may not be the term that you prefer, but veganism is an ethical position.
That's why I didn't limit to the term vegan, and included vegetarian, etc. as well. I'm not here to make a comprehensive list. Plant-based as a WOE term is disingenuous, because it's not plant-based, it's plant-exclusive. It has nothing to do with preference.
I apologize, when you said "Call it what it is" and then listed "vegan" as an option, I thought you were saying vegan would be one of the things it is.
Point taken. I was simply providing a list of things that it could fall under, from a purely technical standpoint. I know vegans who have taken up the WFPB banner, since it doesn't carry the same baggage as 'vegan'.
Not to seem contentious, but that is what I was pointing out -- if someone is limiting their diet to plants but engaging in other forms of animal exploitation (what many people mean now when they say "plant-based," then vegan wouldn't be an accurate term for them). A vegan could be WFPB, but someone isn't vegan simply because they are WFPB -- if that makes sense. It doesn't fall under veganism from a "technical standpoint."
In my experience, "plant-based" is a term that people are using to describe avoiding (or limiting) animal products in the diet. If they aren't going to use "plant-based" because some people don't like it, we'll need another term.
Yep, this. I consider my diet a plant based one, because the majority of what I eat is veg/fruit, grains, beans, nuts and seeds, olives etc. I follow a modified DASH protocol and eat 3 ounces of fish or chicken a day and then 2-3 servings of dairy. Everything else is plant based/majority of my calorie intake comes from plant sources. I'm definitely not a vegetarian though.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions