So U think Vegan is healthy?

[KichigaiNeko]

The problem seems Blackswords man, that real life as experienced by those who have grave misgivings re: "green only diets" is contra to the studies so far.

Agree with you though. "If it works for you, great!... If it doesn't work for you, great!" Find something that does.

[Aractus]

That is interesting but I beg the question as to what other factors are happening here. There is a Cardiologist whom is 98, been vegan 70+ years with zero medical conditions who swears by the diet. There is also a 110? year old woman who is also vegan.

Right, so you have isolated examples.

I don't know too many details but I did find:

• alex jamieson Never was vegan
  

Also I dug a bit further and found she isn't a nutritionist, she is a health coach.

Right, a qualified health coach, unlike 30 Bananas a Day and the author of the blog article above which are examples of people unqualified to give health advice.

But to be honest I don't buy into the dogma of Vegan long term being unhealthy, mainly because in my medical observance I have found it to be too much the opposite.

And yet you provide a blog article titled "Alex Jamieson was never vegan in the first place"? Who is "Ed Coffin" to say such a thing?

• These people and most of their followers are not vegan and never were. They probably ate their oil-free, sugar-free, plant-based salads while online shopping for leather shoes and buying tickets to take their kids to the circus. We need to start calling these people out before they ever even get a chance to be "ex-vegan."
  
  She says herself, "I believe you can love and care about animal welfare and still consume them." That's missing the WHOLE point of veganism! Clearly, this woman was NEVER vegan and what makes it even more annoying is that she spends most of her letter blaming actual vegans for being "purist" or "attacking." This is typical defensive behavior -- direct the blame on someone else.

I already said I was dumbfounded by this approach by vegans to claim that "this person was never vegan in the first place", and defending it isn't a great idea.

The author of the blog you provided believes that vegans must not wear fur or leather (or wool or silk) and must have a coconscious moral objection to the consumption of animals by humans. Anyone who doesn't fit that criteria, according to him, "isn't a real vegan".

He uses labels because he thinks of himself as better than other people. Let's say, that he would at least agree that Jamieson was a vegetarian - right? And we know that, in the US anyway, about 3/4 of vegetarians return to eating meat with the average length of time spent being vegetarian being 9 years. Now his claim that the 75% is only relevant to vegetarians and not to vegans I'm afraid is not right - I found at least one vegan who said in a speech that she believes the number for vegans is "probably higher" than the number for vegetarians (I'm not re-searching for the video right now though, sorry). I can't remember her exact reasoning, but one thing we do know is many people go from vegan to vegetarian and back - one example being Natalie Portman.

Now my perspective is that people need to be more concerned with their own health as a moral issue than with the food they consume. I'm not saying that there aren't moral issues with food as well, but that your own wellbeing is a higher moral priority - it trumps other morals. That's why, for instance, in extreme cases people will even resort to cannibalism to survive.

[KichigaiNeko]

I would like to think that you will finish your studies Daniel and will be able to assist those who are seeking to understand nutrition and their own body's metabolism.

[BlackSwordsman]

That is interesting but I beg the question as to what other factors are happening here. There is a Cardiologist whom is 98, been vegan 70+ years with zero medical conditions who swears by the diet. There is also a 110? year old woman who is also vegan.

Right, so you have isolated examples.

I don't know too many details but I did find:

• alex jamieson Never was vegan
  

Also I dug a bit further and found she isn't a nutritionist, she is a health coach.

Right, a qualified health coach, unlike 30 Bananas a Day and the author of the blog article above which are examples of people unqualified to give health advice.

But to be honest I don't buy into the dogma of Vegan long term being unhealthy, mainly because in my medical observance I have found it to be too much the opposite.

And yet you provide a blog article titled "Alex Jamieson was never vegan in the first place"? Who is "Ed Coffin" to say such a thing?

• These people and most of their followers are not vegan and never were. They probably ate their oil-free, sugar-free, plant-based salads while online shopping for leather shoes and buying tickets to take their kids to the circus. We need to start calling these people out before they ever even get a chance to be "ex-vegan."
  
  She says herself, "I believe you can love and care about animal welfare and still consume them." That's missing the WHOLE point of veganism! Clearly, this woman was NEVER vegan and what makes it even more annoying is that she spends most of her letter blaming actual vegans for being "purist" or "attacking." This is typical defensive behavior -- direct the blame on someone else.

I already said I was dumbfounded by this approach by vegans to claim that "this person was never vegan in the first place", and defending it isn't a great idea.

The author of the blog you provided believes that vegans must not wear fur or leather (or wool or silk) and must have a coconscious moral objection to the consumption of animals by humans. Anyone who doesn't fit that criteria, according to him, "isn't a real vegan".

He uses labels because he thinks of himself as better than other people. Let's say, that he would at least agree that Jamieson was a vegetarian - right? And we know that, in the US anyway, about 3/4 of vegetarians return to eating meat with the average length of time spent being vegetarian being 9 years. Now his claim that the 75% is only relevant to vegetarians and not to vegans I'm afraid is not right - I found at least one vegan who said in a speech that she believes the number for vegans is "probably higher" than the number for vegetarians (I'm not re-searching for the video right now though, sorry). I can't remember her exact reasoning, but one thing we do know is many people go from vegan to vegetarian and back - one example being Natalie Portman.

Now my perspective is that people need to be more concerned with their own health as a moral issue than with the food they consume. I'm not saying that there aren't moral issues with food as well, but that your own wellbeing is a higher moral priority - it trumps other morals. That's why, for instance, in extreme cases people will even resort to cannibalism to survive.

That is true, although some people a lot actually go vegan and do honestly avoid all animal products outside of the realm of foods. It is no surprise. I did a random google Article search on Alex. I half assed my effort towards that, purposely actually but I am sorry for the lack of depth on my part.

Isolated examples, not really there are quite a few more, Neal Barnard, M.D. is a good source of information on it from a more medical perspective.

Veganism is not as rare as one might assume at first glance.

I feel like screaming (not out of anger but of frustration) see the problem with america is it leads the polls in Obesity, False dietary information, lack of dietary education, and as a German I have to point out the average joe is not all too bright. (figuratively speaking)

I tell clients all the time, get your information anywhere BUT america. The information is near non-existance so for them to turn away from vegetarianism is no surprise. Marketing, false information, and negativity from peers is mind blowing.

Americans tend to have a "herd" mentality, when in a country of meat-eaters means peer pressure will most likely have a major effect.

oday, six to eight million adults in the United States eat no meat, fish, or poultry, according to a Harris Interactive poll commissioned by the Vegetarian Resource Group, a nonprofit organization that disseminates information about vegetarianism. Several million more have eliminated red meat but still eat chicken or fish. About two million have become vegans, forgoing not only animal flesh but also animal-based products such as milk, cheese, eggs, and gelatin.

Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses. In July 2009, the American Dietetic Association weighed in with a position paper, concluding that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases" (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, July 2009).

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians tend to consume less saturated fat and cholesterol and more vitamins C and E, dietary fiber, folic acid, potassium, magnesium, and phytochemicals (plant chemicals), such as carotenoids and flavonoids. As a result, they're likely to have lower total and LDL (bad) cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and lower body mass index (BMI), all of which are associated with longevity and a reduced risk for many chronic diseases.

here's some evidence that vegetarians have a lower risk for cardiac events (such as a heart attack) and death from cardiac causes. In one of the largest studies — a combined analysis of data from five prospective studies involving more than 76,000 participants published several years ago — vegetarians were, on average, 25% less likely to die of heart disease. This result confirmed earlier findings from studies comparing vegetarian and nonvegetarian Seventh-day Adventists (members of this religious group avoid caffeine and don't drink or smoke; about 40% are vegetarians). In 2009, in a study involving 65,000 people in the Oxford cohort of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford), researchers found a 19% lower risk of death from heart disease among vegetarians. However, there were few deaths in either group, so the observed differences may have been due to chance.

Research suggests that a predominantly plant-based diet can reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes. In studies of Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians' risk of developing diabetes was half that of nonvegetarians, even after taking BMI into account. The Harvard-based Women's Health Study found a similar correlation between eating red meat (especially processed meats, such as bacon and hot dogs) and diabetes risk, after adjusting for BMI, total calorie intake, and exercise.

Sorry for the extremely long post but the above are direct quotes from Harvard Medical University.

The other thing to consider is Vegans are extremely health conscious or at least "real vegans" are (those whom have been for many many years).

This means they exercise and know where to get what.

[KichigaiNeko]

And yet Harvard Medical University is..... American

[BlackSwordsman]

And yet Harvard Medical University is..... American

That is true, you are very correct BUT, I am referring to Other non-reputable sources such as USDA which is in bed with the meat, dairy, and egg industries (proven in law suit against government for such instance, the USDA was sued and LOST) I call that reference out later if required.

But Harvard sets an Exemplary standard of education even world wide.

University Rankings - World Wide 2013-2014

The rest of the country I am afraid is not so great. But never the less there are always exceptions to the rule.

[KichigaiNeko]

I don't put much store in what Harvard Uni has to say.

But again, I will stress the fact that nutrition and personal metabolism is poorly understood. It should not be this way, is my complaint

[Aractus]

That is true, although some people a lot actually go vegan and do honestly avoid all animal products outside of the realm of foods. It is no surprise. I did a random google Article search on Alex. I half assed my effort towards that, purposely actually but I am sorry for the lack of depth on my part.

Well yes, a lot of "ethical" vegans avoid all animal products, but doesn't give them the exclusive right to use the word "vegan", they're actually a newer hack of vegan than those who go vegan for health reasons like say Bill Clinton. The ethical vegans are happy to use people like Clinton for their own message, but as soon as one of them is an ex-vegan suddenly they were "never vegan"?

Isolated examples, not really there are quite a few more, Neal Barnard, M.D. is a good source of information on it from a more medical perspective.

It's isolated because you have no examples anywhere of a society - a whole village or something that has thrived for generations on a vegan diet. There are some examples of vegetarian diets (SDA etc), but there are no such examples anywhere of vegan diets.

We do not fully understand the long-term health effects of veganism. Freelee of "30 Bananas a Day" takes intravenous B12 - all the while still claiming that there are no deficiencies in a "proper" 80-10-10 vegan diet. That in itself is an admission that B12 oral absorption is known to be reduced for vegans - even though I've not seen hard data that proves it, it's been the experience of many ex-vegans.

But it's not necessarily isolated to B12, if your diet can reduce the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals then it's a pretty clear sign that you need to approach such diets with scepticism and due caution. Veganism is an experiment - it may be good for some people, but it may be bad for others. It may be good for some people short or medium term, but bad long term for those same people.

Veganism is not as rare as one might assume at first glance.

It's rare in the sense that you have no examples anywhere of there ever being a society that thrived on a vegan diet - yet we have all kinds of different diets that humans have thrived on for centuries and millennia, all ranging from eating different kinds of fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, fish and in different quantities etc.

There's really no one diet that is "right for everyone".

I feel like screaming (not out of anger but of frustration) see the problem with america is it leads the polls in Obesity, False dietary information, lack of dietary education, and as a German I have to point out the average joe is not all too bright. (figuratively speaking)

I feel like pointing out that I know of some American statistics that I do not know the numbers for elsewhere, if there are any at all. My argument certainly is not America-based, the vegan argument is truly global and I mean we need to think in terms of: Europeans, Anglo-Saxons, South-East Asians, Indians, Africans, Caribbeans, etc. The diet of the average European is probably not the right diet for the average Indian and vice-versa.

I tell clients all the time, get your information anywhere BUT america.

Why should it matter where information comes from?

The other thing to consider is Vegans are extremely health conscious or at least "real vegans" are (those whom have been for many many years).

False: some are extremely health conscious, and some are not.

[BlackSwordsman]

That is true, although some people a lot actually go vegan and do honestly avoid all animal products outside of the realm of foods. It is no surprise. I did a random google Article search on Alex. I half assed my effort towards that, purposely actually but I am sorry for the lack of depth on my part.

Well yes, a lot of "ethical" vegans avoid all animal products, but doesn't give them the exclusive right to use the word "vegan", they're actually a newer hack of vegan than those who go vegan for health reasons like say Bill Clinton. The ethical vegans are happy to use people like Clinton for their own message, but as soon as one of them is an ex-vegan suddenly they were "never vegan"?

Isolated examples, not really there are quite a few more, Neal Barnard, M.D. is a good source of information on it from a more medical perspective.

It's isolated because you have no examples anywhere of a society - a whole village or something that has thrived for generations on a vegan diet. There are some examples of vegetarian diets (SDA etc), but there are no such examples anywhere of vegan diets.

We do not fully understand the long-term health effects of veganism. Freelee of "30 Bananas a Day" takes intravenous B12 - all the while still claiming that there are no deficiencies in a "proper" 80-10-10 vegan diet. That in itself is an admission that B12 oral absorption is known to be reduced for vegans - even though I've not seen hard data that proves it, it's been the experience of many ex-vegans.

But it's not necessarily isolated to B12, if your diet can reduce the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals then it's a pretty clear sign that you need to approach such diets with scepticism and due caution. Veganism is an experiment - it may be good for some people, but it may be bad for others. It may be good for some people short or medium term, but bad long term for those same people.

Veganism is not as rare as one might assume at first glance.

It's rare in the sense that you have no examples anywhere of there ever being a society that thrived on a vegan diet - yet we have all kinds of different diets that humans have thrived on for centuries and millennia, all ranging from eating different kinds of fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, fish and in different quantities etc.

There's really no one diet that is "right for everyone".

I feel like screaming (not out of anger but of frustration) see the problem with america is it leads the polls in Obesity, False dietary information, lack of dietary education, and as a German I have to point out the average joe is not all too bright. (figuratively speaking)

I feel like pointing out that I know of some American statistics that I do not know the numbers for elsewhere, if there are any at all. My argument certainly is not America-based, the vegan argument is truly global and I mean we need to think in terms of: Europeans, Anglo-Saxons, South-East Asians, Indians, Africans, Caribbeans, etc. The diet of the average European is probably not the right diet for the average Indian and vice-versa.

I tell clients all the time, get your information anywhere BUT america.

Why should it matter where information comes from?

The other thing to consider is Vegans are extremely health conscious or at least "real vegans" are (those whom have been for many many years).

False: some are extremely health conscious, and some are not.

Dairy Industry: Hey joe we released a 5 thousand person study proving milk eliminates illness

Meat industry: Hey joe don't listen to the dairy guys meat is the healthy choice!

Egg industry: Yo they don't know what they are talking about

Christian: Our god is real, the bible is real, one and only

Muslim: Allah is the one true god

Buddhist: There is no god

Agnostic: Maybe there is maybe there isnt




To state such a ridiculous statement as "Why should it matter where information comes from" makes me wonder.

Information is influenced by the dominate backer of each source. In any matter.

I didn't know I had to do all the leg work for you. I am sorry. Do some of the work for me, look up countries whom diets are majorly Vegetarianism, you can argue all you want that there is a difference between Vegan and Vegetarianism but when it comes down to it, dairy. I know there are many classifications of each title.

I notice you have nothing to refernce as a back argument aside from Free Lee the Banana Girl whom I assume is who you are referencing, which by the way if you look at her BLOOD work she has been vegan over 7-years and her blood results are non-deficient. As released recently

A side note on the matter do you find it interesting that "we simply don't know the long term negative effects" of fruits and vegetables yet the "normal" dietary lifestyle meat, milk, etc. has well documented negative ill-effects in the long run.

For example:

data indicate that higher consumption of total red meat, especially various processed meats, may increase risk of developing type 2 diabetes

-American Diabetes Association

Or maybe

eating red meat delivers L-carnitine to bacteria that live in the human gut. These bacteria digest L-carnitine and turn it into a compound called trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO). In studies in mice, TMAO has been shown to cause atherosclerosis, the disease process that leads to cholesterol-clogged arteries. We know that clogged coronary arteries can lead to heart attacks.

-Nature Medicine / Harvard Medical University

United States Government says:

TMAO affects a major pathway for clearing cholesterol from the body, providing a potential mechanism for how TMAO might promote atherosclerosis.

These findings could help explain the elevated health risks associated with red meats.

-United States Government

A compound abundant in red meat and added as a supplement to popular energy drinks has been found to promote atherosclerosis -- or the hardening or clogging of the arteries.

-Science Daily

But those are biased right?

What does the other side say:

During food preparation, chewing, and digestion, the glucosinolates in cruciferous vegetables are broken down to form biologically active compounds such as indoles, nitriles, thiocyanates, and isothiocyanates (1). Indole-3-carbinol (an indole) and sulforaphane (an isothiocyanate) have been most frequently examined for their anticancer effects.

-National Cancer Institute

If nothing else I hope this is cause enough to at least credit my theory with a 'secondary look'.

[KichigaiNeko]

So just who is backing the vegan industry?