I have a friend who is extremely adamant that veganism is the way to do things. I’ve been trying to convince him that it IS in fact alright to eat meat but he is not having it at all. Anybody have any scientific backing as to the pros/cons of veganism? I would appreciate it big time
So is he vegan because of ethics or health?
If its the ethics you have some work to do in terms of un-brainwash him. I have heard that the book the “vegatarian myth” is very useful for that particular use.
If its for health, it is clear that a diet that is high in fruits and vegetables and low in red meat and processed foods is healthy. thats just not the same as a vegan diet being the healthiest. In fact, a came across a metastudy showing that vegans actually have the same mortality rates as meat eaters, whereas vegetarians eating fish and such were way better of.
In terms of actual things, you can tell him that he will probably be deficient in vitamin b12, long chained omega-3’s, iron, protein, calories and probably tons more. Its not impossible to be a succesful vegan, there just doesnt seem to be any reason to be one.
If he starts the raw food thing, i suggest that you stop talking to him.
Just think about it logically the reason that people feel better on a vegan diet is because they’ve automatically cut out a lot of crap from their diet. But, reasonably which to you expect to be better, a restrictive diet or a balanced omnivorous one with good meat, veggies and fruit.
Science wise, tell him there are no studies actually comparing the two. Most of the studies done compare going vegan vs. the typical fast food and junk diet. Not vegan vs. healthy balanced eating.
there are no scientific pros for veganism.
You can make a good, solid case for lacto-ovo-vegetarianism though.
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
there are no scientific pros for veganism.
You can make a good, solid case for lacto-ovo-vegetarianism though.[/quote]
I strongly doubt this, as you would for sure be deficient in some omega-3-fatty-acids which you can find in fish but not in flax seeds(and similar oils).
As far as I know to this day there is not a single study that sheds a favorable light on vegetarinism (no matter what kind of vegetarian) which hasnt latter been shown to be flawed e.g. by ignoring from what “class” the study pariticipants come.
For some reason body composition and ability aren’t enough to convince most people. Nearly every vegan I know is skinny-fat. I can’t think of anyone, athlete or actor, in pop-culture who’s got athletic abilities of a great physique who’s a vegan. Seems like common sense. But that’s not enough to convince I guess.
That’s a great article.
Basically you have to un-brain wash them, and get them to admit things like: carbohydrates should not make up 70-80% of your diet, fats are really good for you, and don’t actually belong in the tip of the food pyramid, complete proteins are essential, and a high-protein diet will not only not kill your kidneys, but is actually healthy. Once you get someone understanding nutrition on their own, then you realize that in nature, a healthy human diet couldn’t be obtained through veganism.
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
there are no scientific pros for veganism.
You can make a good, solid case for lacto-ovo-vegetarianism though.[/quote]
I strongly doubt this, as you would for sure be deficient in some omega-3-fatty-acids which you can find in fish but not in flax seeds(and similar oils)
As far as I know to this day there is not a single study that sheds a favorable light on vegetarinism (no matter what kind of vegetarian) which hasnt latter been shown to be flawed e.g. by ignoring from what “class” the study pariticipants come.[/quote]
You’d be wrong. Omega 3 levels in non-seafood has everything to do with quality of food. Grass-fed beef and free-range chickens/eggs are much much higher in omega-3 than the industrialized junk we get. In turn, when the pastures these animals are raised on are high quality, that has an upward-ratcheting effect on omega-3 intake.
In fact, contrary to your assertion, predominantly lacto-ovo-vegetarian south indians had excellent n-6/n-3 ratios of 1-2:1, and consequently lower rates of degenerative disease. The rising rates of these diseases (obesity, CHD, stroke, etc) in that area of the world have been well correlated to dropping n6/n3 ratios as a result of growing dependence on wheat and the incorporation of industrialized meat sources into their diets. Work on n6/n3 ratios in a range of populations have shown similar trends.
[quote]tommytoughnuts wrote:
I have a friend who is extremely adamant that veganism is the way to do things. I’ve been trying to convince him that it IS in fact alright to eat meat but he is not having it at all. Anybody have any scientific backing as to the pros/cons of veganism? I would appreciate it big time[/quote]
if he likes it and takes b12 then why bother?
[quote]thruxton45 wrote:
if he likes it and takes b12 then why bother? [/quote]
If he takes B12, he’s not really vegan.
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
there are no scientific pros for veganism.
You can make a good, solid case for lacto-ovo-vegetarianism though.[/quote]
I strongly doubt this, as you would for sure be deficient in some omega-3-fatty-acids which you can find in fish but not in flax seeds(and similar oils)
As far as I know to this day there is not a single study that sheds a favorable light on vegetarinism (no matter what kind of vegetarian) which hasnt latter been shown to be flawed e.g. by ignoring from what “class” the study pariticipants come.[/quote]
You’d be wrong. Omega 3 levels in non-seafood has everything to do with quality of food. Grass-fed beef and free-range chickens/eggs are much much higher in omega-3 than the industrialized junk we get. In turn, when the pastures these animals are raised on are high quality, that has an upward-ratcheting effect on omega-3 intake.
In fact, contrary to your assertion, predominantly lacto-ovo-vegetarian south indians had excellent n-6/n-3 ratios of 1-2:1, and consequently lower rates of degenerative disease. The rising rates of these diseases (obesity, CHD, stroke, etc) in that area of the world have been well correlated to dropping n6/n3 ratios as a result of growing dependence on wheat and the incorporation of industrialized meat sources into their diets. Work on n6/n3 ratios in a range of populations have shown similar trends.
[/quote]
-
This omega-3 statement is a common fallacy around places like this. While grasfeed beef has a 2x to 4x higher omage-3 content this is still nowhere even near what you get from seafood.
-
So you say that these proof that indeed the nutriton AND especialy ovo-lacto-vegetarianism is the most important factor in life excpectancy in the south indians? Well, you surly cannot seriously overlook other major lifestyle factors which at least are also major part of the risk profile for the mentioned disease(like movement, stress, exposure to certain drugs/etc.) . ALSO you cannot determine weather the lack of meat in the diet of those is people is the most imporant nutritional factor causing the lower disease rates.
[quote]tommytoughnuts wrote:
I have a friend who is extremely adamant that veganism is the way to do things.[/quote]
Dude your friend is soo right, completely!
Veganism is the only way to do things, it’s the only way our race will ever evolve and grow stronger and smarter.
Think about it for a second… for every vegan we eat, it’s one less dipshit hideing behind the sofa while we nuke a hotdog.
Veganism 4evr!!
;-]
Im all for vaginism
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
there are no scientific pros for veganism.
You can make a good, solid case for lacto-ovo-vegetarianism though.[/quote]
I strongly doubt this, as you would for sure be deficient in some omega-3-fatty-acids which you can find in fish but not in flax seeds(and similar oils)
As far as I know to this day there is not a single study that sheds a favorable light on vegetarinism (no matter what kind of vegetarian) which hasnt latter been shown to be flawed e.g. by ignoring from what “class” the study pariticipants come.[/quote]
You’d be wrong. Omega 3 levels in non-seafood has everything to do with quality of food. Grass-fed beef and free-range chickens/eggs are much much higher in omega-3 than the industrialized junk we get. In turn, when the pastures these animals are raised on are high quality, that has an upward-ratcheting effect on omega-3 intake.
In fact, contrary to your assertion, predominantly lacto-ovo-vegetarian south indians had excellent n-6/n-3 ratios of 1-2:1, and consequently lower rates of degenerative disease. The rising rates of these diseases (obesity, CHD, stroke, etc) in that area of the world have been well correlated to dropping n6/n3 ratios as a result of growing dependence on wheat and the incorporation of industrialized meat sources into their diets. Work on n6/n3 ratios in a range of populations have shown similar trends.
[/quote]
-
This omega-3 statement is a common fallacy around places like this. While grasfeed beef has a 2x to 4x higher omage-3 content this is still nowhere even near what you get from seafood.
-
So you say that these proof that indeed the nutriton AND especialy ovo-lacto-vegetarianism is the most important factor in life excpectancy in the south indians? Well, you surly cannot seriously overlook other major lifestyle factors which at least are also major part of the risk profile for the mentioned disease(like movement, stress, exposure to certain drugs/etc.) . ALSO you cannot determine weather the lack of meat in the diet of those is people is the most imporant nutritional factor causing the lower disease rates.
[/quote]
-
You are 100% correct that seafood is still probably the best source of omega-3 fatty acids. I am not debating it. There’s a lot of interesting evolutionary science on this and how our ancestors may have been able to develop big brains because of increased seafood in their diets. What is a fallacy is that adequate omega-3 intake is impossible without seafood or seafood-based supplements. There are plenty of perfectly healthy populations out there that do not have any seafood in their diet.
-
Peder, I am not by any means saying lacto-ovo-vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet. What I am saying is that it is the only form of vegetarianism that can actually be defended as healthy. There are a lot of reasons south indians tend to be quite healthy. Our active lifestyles, freedom from chemical exposure, etc are great. And one of the factors happens to be that we get a lot of high quality food down there due to the relatively low population pressures and lack of industrialized farming methods. And part of that is because the form of vegetarianism followed by indians allows for quite a bit of animal-source nutrition (i.e. eggs and milk).
I am a big proponent of eating high quality foods in general. This goes for fruit and veg as well as for animal source. Where I may be different than some is that I feel that animal source protein/fat is to a large degree interchangeable. I don’t care whether you get your animal source nutrients from milk, eggs, or meat. As long as you get it and it is high quality, I think it’s just fine.
If anything, the take home point from what I mentioned about lacto-ovo-vegetarianism, is that the only truly healthy vegetarian diet still involves animal source nutrition. That’s the key here. We evolved to depend on animal sources of nutrition. That’s why we don’t make our own long-chain n-3FAs, or B12, or any of a number of differences between us and our monkey cousins. So the only healthy vegetarian diet needs to supply those compounds somehow.
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
[quote]PederLustzo wrote:
[quote]Nikhil Rao wrote:
there are no scientific pros for veganism.
You can make a good, solid case for lacto-ovo-vegetarianism though.[/quote]
I strongly doubt this, as you would for sure be deficient in some omega-3-fatty-acids which you can find in fish but not in flax seeds(and similar oils)
As far as I know to this day there is not a single study that sheds a favorable light on vegetarinism (no matter what kind of vegetarian) which hasnt latter been shown to be flawed e.g. by ignoring from what “class” the study pariticipants come.[/quote]
You’d be wrong. Omega 3 levels in non-seafood has everything to do with quality of food. Grass-fed beef and free-range chickens/eggs are much much higher in omega-3 than the industrialized junk we get. In turn, when the pastures these animals are raised on are high quality, that has an upward-ratcheting effect on omega-3 intake.
In fact, contrary to your assertion, predominantly lacto-ovo-vegetarian south indians had excellent n-6/n-3 ratios of 1-2:1, and consequently lower rates of degenerative disease. The rising rates of these diseases (obesity, CHD, stroke, etc) in that area of the world have been well correlated to dropping n6/n3 ratios as a result of growing dependence on wheat and the incorporation of industrialized meat sources into their diets. Work on n6/n3 ratios in a range of populations have shown similar trends.
[/quote]
-
This omega-3 statement is a common fallacy around places like this. While grasfeed beef has a 2x to 4x higher omage-3 content this is still nowhere even near what you get from seafood.
-
So you say that these proof that indeed the nutriton AND especialy ovo-lacto-vegetarianism is the most important factor in life excpectancy in the south indians? Well, you surly cannot seriously overlook other major lifestyle factors which at least are also major part of the risk profile for the mentioned disease(like movement, stress, exposure to certain drugs/etc.) . ALSO you cannot determine weather the lack of meat in the diet of those is people is the most imporant nutritional factor causing the lower disease rates.
[/quote]
-
You are 100% correct that seafood is still probably the best source of omega-3 fatty acids. I am not debating it. There’s a lot of interesting evolutionary science on this and how our ancestors may have been able to develop big brains because of increased seafood in their diets. What is a fallacy is that adequate omega-3 intake is impossible without seafood or seafood-based supplements. There are plenty of perfectly healthy populations out there that do not have any seafood in their diet.
-
Peder, I am not by any means saying lacto-ovo-vegetarianism is healthier than an omnivorous diet. What I am saying is that it is the only form of vegetarianism that can actually be defended as healthy. There are a lot of reasons south indians tend to be quite healthy. Our active lifestyles, freedom from chemical exposure, etc are great. And one of the factors happens to be that we get a lot of high quality food down there due to the relatively low population pressures and lack of industrialized farming methods. And part of that is because the form of vegetarianism followed by indians allows for quite a bit of animal-source nutrition (i.e. eggs and milk).
I am a big proponent of eating high quality foods in general. This goes for fruit and veg as well as for animal source. Where I may be different than some is that I feel that animal source protein/fat is to a large degree interchangeable. I don’t care whether you get your animal source nutrients from milk, eggs, or meat. As long as you get it and it is high quality, I think it’s just fine.
If anything, the take home point from what I mentioned about lacto-ovo-vegetarianism, is that the only truly healthy vegetarian diet still involves animal source nutrition. That’s the key here. We evolved to depend on animal sources of nutrition. That’s why we don’t make our own long-chain n-3FAs, or B12, or any of a number of differences between us and our monkey cousins. So the only healthy vegetarian diet needs to supply those compounds somehow.[/quote]
You sir most certainly know your stuff. You laid out quite a bit of info in an easy way to read and I love it. Thank you!
[quote]thruxton45 wrote:
[quote]tommytoughnuts wrote:
I have a friend who is extremely adamant that veganism is the way to do things. I’ve been trying to convince him that it IS in fact alright to eat meat but he is not having it at all. Anybody have any scientific backing as to the pros/cons of veganism? I would appreciate it big time[/quote]
if he likes it and takes b12 then why bother? [/quote]
I may have been a little unclear in my initial post. I am mainly looking for a little bit of insight as to the pros/cons of veganism and the like. Obviously I am a wee bit biased because of the several pounds of meat I eat a week, I just want to learn more about everything. No harm in learning right?
@Nikil Rao:
Misunderstanding cleared up - I understood you were pro-vegetarianism and therby contral meat ^^
Otherwise we seem to support the same idea of healthy eating.
You will never win a debate to a vegan or someone that has really made a change to one thing from another. I just nod my head in agreement and be on my way to eating a beef burger.
But I agree that vegans and the media go overboard where they say all meat is bad. I believe that it has to do with they care for the animals and not eat meat.
I would imagine that it would be harder to balance a TRUE vegan diet than one that is a meat eating.
This is all off of the top of my head, I could probably write a paper about it. . .
*see below
veganism pros:
-more antioxidants
-more fiber*
-less saturated fat*
-less acidic food(all about food selection)
veganism cons:
-B12 deficiency
-lack of dietary cholesterol(pre-cursor to testosterone)(your body has to make it which is a waste of energy and other raw materials)
-protein deficiency
-reduces muscle-sensitivity to insulin
-long chain omega 3 deficiency
-CLA deficiency
-too much fiber*
-tough to get good sources of calcium
-tough to get iodine(essential for the thyroid)
meat eater pros:
-easy to “meat” protein requirements
-essential fatty acids
-B12(B complex is not found much if at all in plant foods)
-easier to come by iodine
-meat/animal foods are the only good source of heme iron which is much more bio-available and usable to humans than iron found in plants
meat eater cons:
-easy to consume too much saturated fat
-easy to skip fiber(it’s called eat a fucking vegetable)
-easy to skip antioxidants(it’s called eating fruit or a vegetable or buy some Superfood)
-easy to consume too much fat and protein which leads to body-acidity(eat a fucking bowl of greens)
*saturated fat is actually an essential nutrient, but should not be overeaten
*too much fiber can inhibit digestion, nutrient absorption, and cause constipation
I can speak from experience because I’ve been both vegan, vegetarian, raw-foodie(bad idea), and healthy meat eater, and everything in between. I could type a paper about how they each make me feel but I don’t really want to type for a fuckin hour. I definately feel the best when I’m on a healthy, well-rounded diet. Like some people said: it’s mostly about food quality and there are some foods that are essential for good health.
One more thing, us humans evolved into the smart creatures we are today by eating a naturally balanced diet of healthy, wild, plants AND animals. It is only nowadays that we are so damn smart and industrialized to be able to bypass this and keep ourselves alive. No wonder we humans are on the decline. Whether it’s veganism or eating shitty animal products.
i think veganism just sounds good on paper