So U think Vegan is healthy?

[Coffee Jesus]

Vegans do make the claims that a vegan lifestyle is better for health and better for the environment, but the nucleus to their lifestyle is the desire not to consume animals. And the problem with this is they make claims that are wrong - like that meat, fish, dairy and eggs are actually unhealthy for humans, this isn't true at all. In fact, red meat is the most nutrient dense food that there is, there is more nutrients in cattle liver then there is in any other natural foods that we consume.
edited for bolded text

Fish is healthy as far as I know, but you should avoid fish high in mercury. Coincidentally, these are the fish that are high on the food chain and the most susceptible to over-fishing.
You know that Adventist study that found vegans Adventists live longer statistically? Well the pesco-vegetarians actually had a slightly lower hazard ratio than the vegans.

Harvard controlled studies have linked red meat with higher cardiovascular risk, cancer risk, and overall mortality risk. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20...red-flags/
However, they have also linked poulty with significantly lower mortality risk, so poulty may be healthy. But if you live in the U.S., make sure you bleach your kitchens counters and dishes after preparing a raw chickien.

Eggs have good nutrients, but two separate studies have linked them with [edit] prostate cancer events [/edit], so men should probably limit their intake.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3132069/ haven't read this one yet, but it looks like eggs were linked with increased risk of prostate cancer recurrence or progression.
Hazard Ratio: 2.02
95% Confidence Interval: 1.10, 3.72
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167401 Then this meta-analysis found no evidence for a link between eggs and prostate cancer occurrence or mortality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3232297/ Then this study found the link again, but only for the incidence analysis. People who didn't have prostate cancer at baseline were more likely to get lethal prostate cancer if they ate even 1 egg a week. However, eggs did not effect survival rates among those diagnosed with prostate cancer at baseline in the "case-only survival analysis".
Excerpt: "Men who consumed 2.5 or more eggs per week had a
81% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer compared to men who consumed less than half
an egg per week (HR: 1.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13, 2.89; p-trend: 0.01)"

Vegans believe all deficiencies can be corrected with supplements, this just is not true. You have to work with the process in which the body works to break down nutrients using its enzymes, not in a way that simply doesn't work. B12 is a really interesting example on this one - many vegans will actually not want to say which health supplement vegans should take, and this is because vegans who take supplements in the form of a pill still become B12 deficient, and then have to be given it through IV. This is an example that although it may sound on paper as if a supplement will correct a deficiency, real world examples show that the supplements are not absorbed the way in which the same nutrient is directly from the whole food source.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Vitamin...fessional/

"Existing evidence does not suggest any differences among forms with respect to absorption or bioavailability. However the body’s ability to absorb vitamin B12 from dietary supplements is largely limited by the capacity of intrinsic factor. For example, only about 10 mcg of a 500 mcg oral supplement is actually absorbed in healthy people [8]."

---

edited to add

The United Nations is urging western society to go back to eating insects. There are arguments that they are healthier, more nutritious, and would result in less pollution.
As far as ethics go, insects are poisoned to protect crops, but in this case, the insects would owe their very existence to the industry that is killing them. Still, entomophagy (bug eating) poses some difficult ethical dilemmas.