Vegan and Vegetarian Diet questions

[SpyderEdgeForever]

I have some questions about vegan and vegetarian diets, for those who know about these.

1 How can someone get the necessary vitamins and nutrients and amino acids and fats and other things human bodies need, if one sticks to a purely vegan diet? By vegan I mean no animal products whatsoever, though I heard even vegan foods make indirect use of animal products, or so I've read.

Do vitamin and other supplements work for that?

2 Are vegan diets safe for children or should they only be for people who are in their upper teens and adults? ie, would children be missing out on growing, nourishing foods this way?

I personally tried the vegan diet for a time, and I may not have done it right, but I felt like I was lacking serious nutrition and such things.

A friend of mine who is very critical of vegan diets told me that nearly every vegan is missing out on significant amounts of necessary (for human life, productivity, and well-being) and he has noticed this with practically every vegan he personally knew.

I'm just asking because I'm curious and also I read websites about the ups and downs of vegan and vegetarian diets.

[Cliff Stamp]

Here is the thing, anyone can write anything on a website, unless it references from a source which uses reliable methods, it is entertainment only.

If you want to learn about this then the answers can be found as they are with any issue, in the peer reviewed and published literature, such as :

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528709/

In short, the answer is yes, it is possible, however it is a diet that requires very careful consideration to ensure that there is a proper balance of nutrients.

[tvenuto]

I will preface this by saying there is:

1. Optimum for health
2. Optimum for athletic performance
3. Necessary for life

These things are not interchangeable, and "health" is a highly debated state without a generally accepted definition. Most people who have thought about it mean something like "a minimum of disease with maximized longevity while feeling good." Some people just mean "thin" but they are misguided so we'll ignore that for now.

To answer question #1, I would say there are a lot of nutrients that our bodies can synthesize from other dietary elements. However, as you mention, some things are necessary, or what is called "essential." That is, it is essential we get it from our diet. It is well known that corn and beans combine to make a complete amino acid profile. Whether or not it's optimal is one thing, but it is survivable. As far as the micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) obviously those can be supplemented. Supplements, true to their name, are merely food products purpose built to fill in holes in the diet, or to make the filling of those holes more convenient. So, by definition, a supplement is perfectly capable of replacing something that may be lacking in the diet.

To (not really) answer #2, I would say: maybe? I do know that a vegan couple was sentenced to life when their child died of malnutrition because they only fed it soy milk and juice. Obviously this doesn't mean there wasn't neglect involved, but it does show that a child has far less wiggle room than an adult when it comes to nutrition. An adult can always harvest their own muscle for amino acids, for example.

So, with a child, I would say you'd have to be even more cognizant that you were properly supplementing, but I see no reason that it would be impossible in principle.

I would echo some of your friend's sentiments, however I would caution that we need to define these terms like I outlined at the beginning. Every vegan I encounter is very underweight from an athletic perspective (my perspective). They also have a relatively high bodyfat percentage, stemming in this case from low muscle mass as opposed to being "overweight." It may very well be that a vegan doesn't care about athletic performance and will outlive their stronger/faster/more handsome peers. However, my wife's coworker is vegetarian (maybe vegan?) and she is nearly constantly sick. My wife, despite being pregnant (lowered immune system), and working next to her, and even flying next to her on several occasions, has not been sick yet.

My question would be: what is driving the choice to be vegan or vegetarian?

[dialex]

Without the intention to hurt anyone's choices or way of life, I think veganism is wrong.
Nutrition is a higly debated subject and people are different, so what's good for one may be bad for another, but a fact remains:
Humans are omnivore creatures (like the pig). If we were herbivorous, our intestins would have been much longer and the dentition would be different.
I think sticking exclusively to vegetables and fruits just pushes our bodies to the limit and in time, negative effects will happen. There are well known nutrition diseases (like the beri-beri) which occur to people whose diet is unbalanced.
There is this woman I know, she is fitness instructor, working aerobics, pilates and bodybuilding a few hours daily in her gym. Very beautiful, smart, blond hair, blue eyes, big natural boobs (but who cares about these anyway). She is also a vegan.
And while she is ok, there is something wrong with the texture of her skin and the way her muscles stay on her body (they have a "flaccid" look). I think she would look much better if she would give up this extreme way of eating. But that's just me.

Oh, and here's a link to an article which some of you may find interesting: http://authoritynutrition.com/top-11-bi ... gan-diets/

[tvenuto]

This forum has been around the block on the meaning of right and wrong recently, so I imagine when you say "wrong" you mean "the reasoning behind the choice is wrong" which I would agree is often the case. This is why I asked what was driving the choice, because I assume we're discussing this because SEF is perhaps considering a vegetarian or vegan diet.

I find it interesting that we're so obsessed with emulating attractive people, even though they're attractive for completely separate reasons than why we seek to emulate them. We seem to consider their attractiveness an actual personal accomplishment, which is far more charitable than we are with many other qualities. Take wealth for instance. If a guy was born into money, and increased his wealth via starting a company, we still tend to think that he is only rich because he was a trust fund baby. We discount the possibility that he might have lost all that money making poor decisions.

Now that is somewhat of a separate discussion, but I mention it because this woman is far more likely to convince others to try her diet being attractive. Also, if she were ugly, you would have said: "I know a vegan fitness instructor and she looks terrible!" Also, you might not have said that at all because she may not even have been a successful fitness instructor being ugly! Sad but true.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Thank you for the great info and replies. Yeah I brought this up both out of curiousity and about the good and bad parts of it, and, also, I personally know people who have chosen both vegetarian and a very strict vegan diet, in which they will not even eat honey because they think humans are stealing it from the bees, and, I am somewhat concerned that they are not getting the adequate nutrition they need, due to their ethical veganism, but, that is their choice in the end and all I can do is recommend or advise but I want to advise wisely and not just off the cuff.

I have also noticed there is a "Pescatarian" diet in which the person is basically a vegetarian who includes fish and seafood in order to get extra protein and nutrients but will not eat chicken, pork, or red meats.

[tvenuto]

TI personally know people who have chosen both vegetarian and a very strict vegan diet, in which they will not even eat honey because they think humans are stealing it from the bees

If nothing else, vegans are great for entertainment. :p Do you realize the elements in our bodies resulted from the death of a star, man? How do you live with yourself?! (<-sarcasm)

It is a central feature of existence that for one organism to survive, others must die.

I have also noticed there is a "Pescatarian" diet in which the person is basically a vegetarian who includes fish and seafood in order to get extra protein and nutrients but will not eat chicken, pork, or red meats.

Yes, you notice correctly, this is a thing that exists. I'm sure different people adopt this for various reasons, some good, some less so.

[Surfingringo]

I am probably close to this "pescatarian" you mention. I will eat absolutely anything but the bulk of my diet is fish, vegetables and fruit. There is no reason for this choice other than I always have fish around and I'm too cheap to go buy beef and chicken when I have a freezer full of fish. I tend to think its a pretty healthy diet and I'd guess that fish is probably healthier to eat daily than beef. I don't know if thats true but it sounds like it could be.

[Cliff Stamp]

It is a central feature of existence that for one organism to survive, others must die.

I am a vegetarian for religious religious reasons, my partner is a Hindu. The only animal product they eat is milk from a cow, also for religious reasons. The argument isn't that being vegetarian allows you to live without killing anything, it is that it is a choice to minimize harm by picking a particular sub-set of things to kill. If person is walking down the road and about to step into traffic and you pushed them out of the way then they might get harmed in the fall. This however doesn't mean it is amoral because they would have been harmed by being hit by the car anyway. That argument assumes all harm is equal which most people don't hold.

As with many moral beliefs, some people hold them because that is how they were raised, some people hold them because it is some kind of popular/trend (certainly true for veganism to some extent), some people hold them because just having it allows them to have a happy/healthy life irrespective of its objective correspondence, and some people hold them because of introspection and rational justification.

As an aside, in this thread, there are multiple instances where statements are made which in any other context would be recognized as being seriously problematic. How about if I made this argument :

"I don't know why you are talking about being friends with mexicans. Mexicans are thieves. I knew a mexican once, I left him alone in my apartment for 10 minutes, the next day I could not find my watch or ipad. "

Most people would realize this as irrational and quite frankly generally is accepted as a moral wrong. However it is just justified to say "vegetarians are ..." or make an argument about veganism from one couple or one person who has some traits. If the mexican argument is see as being false, irrational and generally classified as hate speech (which I hope most people would view it that way), then the same holds when any classification is made with the same scant justification which does not provide support for any such strong claims. The general form of the argument is :

-I have seen a duck it was white

-Therefore all ducks are white

This in general isn't a great argument and it tends to show that the person who is making it is willing to come to conclusions without reliable means of justification.

[tvenuto]

Ah, but being Mexican is not a choice, and thus we can infer nothing from it. Being vegetarian is a choice, so we can infer some things from it. This is not an argument for stereotyping, I'm merely noting a key difference between the discussion and your analogy. I have mentioned repeatedly the need for more specificity and less generalization throughout this thread.

I am reading a book right now titled "The Black Swan" which deals with the exact problem you mentioned, Cliff. It turns out humans are bad at this in general.

[Cliff Stamp]

Ah, but being Mexican is not a choice, and thus we can infer nothing from it.

If someone is a race it is obviously possible to infer things from it as races have genetic and cultural differences. What is not possible is to make such inferences in an absolute manner as they are probabilistic. It would be reasonable, if you knew nothing else, and had to blindly pick a Nigerian or an Inuit to win a 1000 m race in 30 C degree weather on a dirt track, to put money on the Nigerian. However if you were a track coach, it would not be reasonable to never allow an Inuit to try out for track, or to argue that all Inuit can't run track. There is a fine line when you use known probabilities to exert pressure against a group in techniques such as racial profiling.

--

Not everyone "decides" to be vegetarian, for a lot of people it is how they are raised and they don't chose it any more than they choose their name. Most people can change their name, but few do, but do you judge people by it? A lot of the people I spoke to in India were vegetarian by default just like where I live a lot of people are Christian by default and religion to them is about as important as what brand of pencil they buy. If they fill it out on an application then they would check yes, but beyond that it influences next to nothing they do and most can't even answer basic questions about Christianity. Even for the people who do decide, the reasons they do are complex and varied. If you want to understand a person, it helps to ignore the labels, not to focus on what they do and talk to them to understand why they do it.

I knew a guy once who use to raise more money for charity when we were kids than anyone else. If there was a lapathon when the other kids would run a few laps, he would run a 100. If there was a donation drive, when most kids brought in a half a dozen pledges he would have a full sheet. What can you infer from this? Does it change if I tell you that he used to keep 50% of everything he got for himself and only give half of it to charity? Does that change your opinion of who he was, his character, his morality? If you just look at him from the outside, what he does, you see one person. if you became friends with him and learned why he did what he did you would see something very different.

We evolved to make very quick decisions all the time because quite simply if two men walk down a path and there is a rustle in the bushes, the one who jumps back because he knows it is a tiger will live. The one who ponders the situation, thinks about all the possibilities, if this is a threat or opportunity - well that guy is just lunch when it eventually is a tiger. The problem is that in our modern world these evolutionary behaviors which got us here are no longer that productive. Hence we have to unlearn all of those and focus on how to make unbiased decisions in a reliable manner to produce justified beliefs. Luckily for us, a large group of people have been studying how to do this for quite some time, there are even institutions which teach it.

Hint, it rhymes with science.

[Surfingringo]

There are still bushes...and there are still tigers.

[tvenuto]

Even for the people who do decide, the reasons they do are complex and varied. If you want to understand a person, it helps to ignore the labels, not to focus on what they do and talk to them to understand why they do it.

Agreed. But SEF asked general questions about a vegetarian diet, not "why is Cliff's partner a vegetarian?" or "what is every possible reason someone might be vegetarian, and how does this inform how I should treat them?" If you took issue with Dialex statement about it being "wrong" (which may not exactly have been what he meant, and was the only absolute, generalized statement here) then I would think you should address that directly.

[Cliff Stamp]

But SEF asked general questions about a vegetarian diet...

Which I answered sourcing the literature.

The discussion went off topic in responding to off-topic comments by others.

[Cliff Stamp]

There are still bushes...and there are still tigers.

Hence why you realize how to utilize the bias that we have and control it vs letting it control you. We have evolved a brain which can make inductive decisions with little to no data extremely rapidly, far faster than any modern computer. This has its uses sure, but it also has its limitations. If we were to ever meet for example, my brain would automatically start to make judgments on your character simply from how you look, the way you talk and how you walk and even sit. These decisions happen on a subconscious level and will effect by conscious decisions. However if I know it then I can focus on that, not let them dictate my actions and attempt to understand who you are as an individual vs inferring who you are as a composite of people I have met with similar characteristics.

[MichaelScott]

But SEF asked general questions about a vegetarian diet...

Which I answered sourcing the literature.
.

No, you didn't. Vague references and an appeal to simplistic and inaccurate evolutionary processes isn't "sourcing the literature."

"Evolution." That word does not mean what you think it means.

Actual citations would be in order to support your argument.

[Cliff Stamp]

Actual citations would be in order to support your argument.

The citations are in the original reply on the nutritional issue with a vegan diet.

[Cliff Stamp]

In regards to the evolution and foundation for bias and cognition in general, this is a deep and rich area of study. Now of course unless you want to argue special creation or some kind of mind/body dualism, all of our behavior is of course evolved.

On a basic level, it isn't that difficult to understand that method of thinking which are very destructive now did not always have to be such. For example in an area / time of extreme tribalism racial segregation could easily be a very positive survival trait.

Haselton, Nettle and Andrews in "The evolution of cognitive bias" present a very nice overview of the modern understanding of how often what we see as negative/destructive behaviors could easily be explained though being solutions to very different living conditions in the past.

[O,just,O]

I saw some ducks, quite a few times & some were white while others were black & white & there were speckled & brown ones with green heads.
Some of these ducks were vego's & a few were vegan while the remainder ate meat.
The work was hay carting. That is the small rectangular bales, the old regular size. All the ducks were offered the work by the hay grower & it was the only bit of work around for these ducks.
The vegan ducks did not turn up for work.
The vego ducks did turn up & work but were very tired & sad little ducks by morning tea & worn out by lunch time.
The ducks on the meat meal diet were still merrily pecking away days later.
This was so obvious to see by all who worked there & the hay farmer that it came to the point with the farmer where he would only employ those ducks that could put in a good day, day after day.

[tvenuto]

O, I would really love to hear your life story. I don't know a single boring Aussie (although I admit there is selection bias in this judgement).