quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
The author makes the very good point that we very likely need the (as yet) unidentified micro nutrients found in whole foods such as salads. When we limit or eliminate our intake of these unprocessed foods, we run the risk of limiting or eliminating valuable nutrients from our diet.

The exact same logic can be applied to any class of food a person might choose to eliminate from their diet. That is the most significant argument against any diet that arbitrarily eliminates any food class such as animal products. It is quite possibly an unhealthy or even dangerous practise.

<HR>

I have been vegan for over 12 years and am very healthy. There are also professional athletes, triathletes, Olympians who are vegan and very healthy.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
Is your point that the author is wrong and that the micro-nutrients found whole foods is totally unnecessary or do you have some other point to make?
<HR>

Well, the author's point seems to be that vegan diets are optimal. Since animals derive all of their "as yet unidentified micronutrients" from plants (or bacteria or the sun), there is limited evidence that we as humans cannot do the same. It's not strictly that simple, but by eating something equivalent to what a cow would have to eat to gain 4 oz. of muscle and fat we'd get so much more than eating that 4 oz of meat.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
Clearly that is not true. No human could derive sufficient nutrition from the diet of a cow. Even with a much wider vegan diet, there are other nutrients known to be unavailable in a non animal product diet and still others known to be in short supply. What is unknown is precisely the same that the author referred to. Namely the "as yet unidentified micronutrients" that are likely present and beneficial in any whole food (in this case meat).

The author is exhibiting the same bias you are. If one can make a case that salads contain "as yet unidentified micronutrients" then the exact same logic would dictate that meat also contains "as yet unidentified micronutrients". The irrational bias of the vegetarian does not invalidate the logic.

<HR>

That's why I said equivalent, not the exact diet of a cow. There are extremely few identified nutrients known to be unavailable in plant products (and all of those nutrients are present in animal products because they derive them from plant products, bacteria in the gut, and the sun). There are, however, hundreds, if not thousands, of already identified micronutrients available in plant products not available in animal products. By eliminating some plant foods to make room for some animal foods, all science indicates I would be losing a lot more than I would be gaining.

I am not the type of vegetarian who claims that meat eating is wholly unhealthy. I believe it can be done healthfully, although not in our present system within a reasonable budget. The author brings up no ethical claims, but my point of view is that I can live out my ethics fairly consistently and also eat a diet that is vastly superior than that of the average American by eating closely to what is recommended in the article above.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
I have been a meat eater for over 60 years and am very healthy. There are also professional athletes, triathletes, and Olympians who are meat eaters and very healthy. Actually, all of these meat eaters can, and probably do, eat all of the foods you eat as a vegan. The point is that by eliminating animal products, you are eliminating all the potentially beneficial nutrients available to the non-vegan.

Is your point that the author is wrong and that the micro-nutrients found whole foods is totally unnecessary or do you have some other point to make?

<HR>

I?m not saying that you can?t be healthy eating a diet with meat. I?m just saying that you can eat a diet without it and still be completely healthy.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ariann:
That's why I said equivalent, not the exact diet of a cow. There are extremely few identified nutrients known to be unavailable in plant products (and all of those nutrients are present in animal products because they derive them from plant products, bacteria in the gut, and the sun). There are, however, hundreds, if not thousands, of already identified micronutrients available in plant products not available in animal products. By eliminating some plant foods to make room for some animal foods, all science indicates I would be losing a lot more than I would be gaining.

I am not the type of vegetarian who claims that meat eating is wholly unhealthy. I believe it can be done healthfully, although not in our present system within a reasonable budget. The author brings up no ethical claims, but my point of view is that I can live out my ethics fairly consistently and also eat a diet that is vastly superior than that of the average American by eating closely to what is recommended in the article above. <HR>

You are quite correct regarding the identified nutrients but this discussion is regarding those, as yet, unidentified micronutrients and, by definition, you cannot say with any certainty that such nutrients that likely exist in animal products are available to the vegan. Unlike the meat eater, the vegan actually completely eliminates certain foods and by doing so ensures they will be deprived of any nutrient that may only be found in meat. As the OP said in the referenced story "As athletes, the first three things we typically think of, when it comes to diet, are carbs, protein, and healthy fats. But a fourth group ? the micronutrients ? is equally important."

In reality, no meat eater completely eliminates anything from his diet in order to make room for meat and therefore cannot be said to be at any disadvantage over the vegan. In fact, it is the vegan that completely eliminates a whole class of foods which is most unlikely to offer any advantage and almost certainly offers a disadvantage. And, that is precisely my point, the vegan diet cannot be said to be a healthier diet than a diet that includes literally everything in the vegan diet plus an entire family of foods with both identified and unidentified nutritional value.

Any person, with just minimal effort, can eat a diet that is vastly superior to that of the average American. It doesn't take any kind of vegetarian to do so nor does it require any compromise of my ethics. The vegan diet is unlikely to be healthier, is likely to be more unhealthy, and is both inconvenient and expensive. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage is the widespread association of the various forms of a vegetarian diet to facilitate disordered eating.

------------------
gotta run...

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ariann:
snip
b) All scientific studies on vegans/vegetarians have shown them to be as healthy or healthier than average. Since it seems like we've yet to be able to round up a group of healthy meat-eaters to compare them to, the jury's really still out on this one.

snip

And no meat-eater I know eats anywhere near the variety of fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains as I do, so they clearly are missing something in order to get the meat in. <HR>

The scientific studies do nor attribute the health status of the vegetarian to the vegetarian nature of their diet. There are a number of studies that demonstrate a strong correlation between a vegetarian diet and disordered eating.

There is absolutely nothing to preclude a meat-eater from enjoying the full range of foods used by a vegan. OTOH, it is obvious that the vegan cannot enjoy the full range of foods used by the meat-eater. If anything is clear, it is that all vegans must, as a condition of their lifestyle, fully eliminate certain foods from their diet regardless of any health consideration. Of the two dietary styles under consideration, ONLY the vegetarian diet can possibly be missing something.

Unless you care to try to make the point that meat is intrinsically unhealthy, there are no circumstances under which a vegan diet can said to be intrinsically healthier than an omni diet.

------------------
gotta run...

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ariann:
In what way do they not attribute the health status of the vegetarian to the vegetarian nature of their diet? That is the entire point of the conclusion of many studies. So if we take it your next step, people with EDs are more healthy? Is that the point you're trying to make?

Many, many studies have linked the consumption of meat and dairy to a variety of ailments - I don't have to make the case, it's already been made for me.

And, as you have said very many times on this board - when you overemphasize one food group, others suffer - the same is true when meat is emphasized at all in the diet - fruits and vegetables get left out - a balance must be found. I don't think it's been conclusively shown whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but because the health benefits of eating a variety and a large quantity of fruits and vegetables has been shown overwhelmingly and the healthfulness of having meat in the diet is nowhere near as proven, it seems like making the space in the diet available for produce smaller is not playing the odds very well.<HR>

Just as the overemphasis of one food group is very likely unhealthy, the underemphasis of one food group is equally likely to be unhealthy. A vegan diet takes the underemphasis of one food group to the extreme which, if it does anything, is likely to be detrimental to one's health.

The number of calories from meat in a standard healthy diet is probably less than 20% of total calories and from all animal products probably less than 30%. The reduction in vegi content by that amount cannot possibly offer the degree of risk that is experienced by the vegan who reduces the animal content of her diet by 100%.

But, all this nonsense aside, the point of my original post in this thread was that the unidentified micronutrients in whole foods are are very likely needed for optimum health. Regardless of how the discussion gets sidetracked, the fact remains that the vegan diet entirely precludes any possibility of getting any possible benefits from these nutrients. Compared to a standard diet that includes animal products, the vegan diet is unique only in that it totally excludes certain foods and the nutrients therein. Such exclusion cannot be better.

As for the relative health status of vegans, the claimed scientific results are very questionable in my view. Given the widespread incidence of ED among vegetarians, with its usual health problems, it is extremely unlikely any study would include those with pre-existing ED related health problems. Any such studies would almost certainly begin with all members in reasonably good health and therefore exclude those with ED related problems and thus almost guarantee biased results.

The numbers of reported incident of ED in the US along with the extremely high incidence of vegetarianism among them forces one to conclude that almost all reported vegetarians (female) have some degree of ED. That fact does not inspire confidence in any health claims for vegetarianism.

------------------
gotta run...