Further discussion on issues with veganism

I wrote a long reply to a previous post on a now locked thread and can not allow all that time to be for naught. For naught!

As Cole Dano stated: "- No name calling, Yes that means not a hint, tinge or whiff, of implying you are better than someone else because of what you eat. PERIOD"

So let me post Mercurial Flow's questions from the last post and in the next post I will answer with what I know:

I have never, ever heard of cobalamin-producing microbial strains existing on their own in water or dirt that is at all relevant to us, nor has the possibility that those microbes existed in the human gut ever been presented in my studies. That also completely disagrees with the fact that people who live in areas without sanitation (tribal/nomadic populations) also develop cobalamin deficiency when they don't have access to meat due to environmental issues or poverty. Many African children have cobalamin deficiency, because their families can only manage a few crops to sustain themselves, but can't afford or look after livestock. I think the idea that cobalamin-producing microbes existed in the human gut already would have been a very important point for my lecturers to mention. They went on about cobalamin only being derived from animal sources and nothing else, so I don't know how this information escaped qualified scientists with degrees and global experience in their field. Moreover, as far as I've been told, cobalamin-producing bacteria are found in cow stomachs because they are ruminants, and don't exist in human stomachs simply because they can't survive in our digestive system. It is so alien to that of a cow/chicken/pig/sheep/fish, that it can't possibly thrive/exist for any relevant period of time. If you could cite that, I would much appreciate it. Then I could give a stern talking-to to a PhD (and won't that be fun?)

Here's an explanation of the Healthy User Bias (just the Wiki definition): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias

Your post seems to indicate that you think inflammation is a disease in itself, and inherently bad. It would take me months of lectures to explain why this isn't true, but just for the moment you'll have to believe me when I say that inflammation is actually a good thing in many, or even most, cases. It is the cause of set inflammation that can be beneficial or detrimental. Exercise causes acute inflammation, yet it improves one's health. Inflammation is simply a response to a stimulus, and while homocysteine levels have been correlated with increased heart disease, this does not mean that this is the cause of set disease. It could easily be the effect. Though homocysteine can cause endothelial damage, and it likely contributes. Though this doesn't explain the slightly lower heart disease rates in vegetarians.

The Healthy User Bias is such an issue with veganism because if you were to compare non-health conscious omnivores with non-health conscious vegans, you'd be comparing a lot of dead vegans to a lot of living people. Veganism is finnicky enough that if you completely ignore proper variety requirements in your diet, you can easily die. If you were to just eat kale all the time, you would die. That's an example of a non-health conscious vegan. Fruitarianism is another. They are often 'health conscious' but their diet is so strange and restrictive that it is even more difficult to avoid nutritional deficiencies. Many people have come close to dying by following the FreeLee banana diet, and there's even a petition out against her.

Here's a fairly good article that mentions some of the studies I wanted to cite: http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/nutrition/meat.htm

There are others I'd like to mention, but they only appear in textbooks, not online, and it's the weekend so I don't have access to college resources!

Even if vegans want to sweep cobalamin under the rug with an anecdotal broom, zinc is another deficiency that few vegetarians are not exempt from. And many zinc rich sources of food (soy, grains) that vegans consume also contain chelating phytates, which bind to zinc ions and reduce their bioavailability. Moreover, there is iron deficiency, and while plant sources do contain non-heme-iron, it is much less bioavailable than heme-iron. Various drinks such as teas and coffees contain tannins which specifically further reduce the bioavailability of non-heme-iron. Hallberg L., Rossander L. demonstrated this in a study, the abstract of which you can view (and hopefully download in full) here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6896705

Another interesting point is to ask why, in no previous period in history, has a population developed and thrived on a vegetarian diet? And why is it that the Inuit people can survive on a diet full of organ meats, without shortened lifespans? There are vegetarian populations in India, but they have just as short or shorter lifespans than many of their fellow countrymen in the same economic strata.

Just to be clear overall again.

I did not state it was impossible to get necessary nutrients you need on a vegan diet. I simply said it was more difficult than it would be on an omnivorous diet. Just putting that out there first and formost.

I'll respond to your post from the bottom up.

Fishoil. Your study that says there's evidence that high level of DHA may increase cancer stated specifically " but have not been large enough to provide precise estimates of association." Meaning, they can't say that high DHA caused it or if they just happened to have high DHA levels. Plus that study was done with cancer patients and the DHA didn't cure their cancer. So you can't really insinuate that DHA is bad because of cancer risk. That's not a valid test if that was the proof. Their own results were 50/50 with whether or not patients felt better from other symptoms or not.

Yes fish are the highest form of mercury and fish poop, whatever. But if you buy wild caught they are the healthiest form of fish available. Simply clean the fish. When a fish is at the market it only has half of the skin leftover, so the trace amounts of mercury are not high enough to harm human beings. But wild caught salmon does offer a ton of vitamin D and higher amounts of epa/dha than you would find in farm raised. Nearly 1000 IU per 3.5 oz of salmon. Vitamin D supplements usually are in doses of 3000-5000 IU. Meaning just eating 14 ounces of wild caught salmon gives you as much as you would in a supplement with the bonus of epa/dha and protein.

The vegan sources like micro algae is a good source, but is still only a fraction of what fish oil offers to begin with. And the fact that the cellulose wall is indigestible for humans means you won't even absorb all it has to offer anyways. Humans do not have cellulase, which is what allows herbivores to breakdown that wall into all the digestible nutrients for themselves. But those nutrients are stored in the muscles and organs of the fish in a digestible form for humans and the fish consume enough of it for it to be a higher source of omega 3.

Subject Study/Design.

No comment on that really. As I prefaced my point, I state that it's possible to get what they need and always have just that it's unlikely they will during every day life because it is more difficult.


Iron/Zinc

*nods*. I agree that is a good work around for vegans. That's a lot of pumpkin seeds.


I'm going to leave it there. Everything else you said I pretty much agree with from a scientific standpoint.

For whatever reason, vegetarianism discussions in the nutrition forum have a habit of dissolving into emotional hand wringing by both sides rather than mature, informative, factual discussions.  

If the line of civility is crossed again by any of the participants; I will lock that thread down and then delete without further notice all future threads discussing vegetarianism.  Not because I have any concerns about vegetarianism - but because I will no longer tolerate the resulting juvenile behavior from a small but vocal minority.

Bottom line:  What someone else chooses to include or not include in their diet is their business, not yours.  Stop trying to brow beat them into following your own personal preferences.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Domz, I'd just like to say; thank you for the civil and voluble reply! The headings made it easy to read and was very interesting! 

The Inuit Argument:

My point was simply that a diet rich in meat occurred in a certain population without ill-effects, whereas a vegetarian one hasn't. I understand their genetic variance is a factor, but the same argument can be applied to vegetarianism (that some people simply don't have the genes for a vegetarian diet, especially those with certain genetic diseases). Aside, the accumulative toxin point is somewhat moot, as that isn't an inherent characteristic of all meat. Most meat doesn't contain an appreciable amount of heavy metals or organic toxins, so that isn't something that will affect everyone, and those that are affectednwill all be affected to varying degrees.

Vegetarians versus Vegans:

I'd just like to point out that vegetarianism is a diet; veganism is a lifestyle. For the purposes of nutrition, they aren't any different, but a true vegetarian does not consume animal products, whereas a vegan does not use animal products. "Vegetarian" is often erroneously used to describe lactovovegetarianism. Though yes, I agree that lumping lactovovegetarians together with vegetarians (whether by fallacy of association or the misuse of correct terms) is silly! 

Ah yes, but Adventist life spans could also be explained by a decrease in glycotoxin and AGE consumption...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645629/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't consume much cooked food, do they?

B12:

Thank you for the new (and unexpected) information! I'll definitely bring it up with my lecturers...

To my knowledge, near all cobalamin deficiencies in omnivores are caused by unhealthy diets in general, so for a health-conscious omnivore, this isn't really an issue (goes back to the Healthy User Bias).

That is some interesting information, and while it's great from a microbiological perspective, from a practical perspective... Is that information really important? Who is going to eat their own faeces regularly? It may have been an occurrence in the past, but it isn't really possible today. Not to mention that the microbiomes of the colon, small intestines, stomach and mouth are separated by sphinters and concentrated hydrochloric acid (in the stomach only), so introducing microbes from one end and into the other could pose problems and spread pathogens: http://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_harmful_to_ingest_feces_or_urine

(And no, urine is not sterile as everyone keeps saying! Seriously, how is that a thing? There are certain microbes that only thrive in urine)

That's the thing though; these people are often forced to use their own faeces for manure simply because livestock is a scarcity. Yet cobalamin deficiency is still an issue. I've only heard of this issue in Africa, where poverty is worse than in other continents, so this might present a bias.

Iron/Zinc:

I didn't say that phytates weren't beneficial, just that they bind to, and reduce the bioavailability of, zinc.

To my knowledge, cooking in iron/steel pots doesn't appreciably contribute to increased presence of iron in foods. Lead, and I think copper pots, are the exception (though copper is minimal). Also, pure iron isn't nearly as useful as iron-containing proteins (heme). 

Iron overload is rarely an issue. It only presents in people oversupplementing or those with haemochromatosis. 

That's the issue with chelating phytates; whole grains can contribute to zinc deficiency, though it seems clear that conscientious food choices are enough to avoid zinc deficiency. Women are more at risk for iron deficiency due to menstruation, and men are more at risk for zinc deficiency due to it's role with testosterone.

Healthy User Bias:

Nice. Nothing like a good pun to compliment a thesis-worthy post 

Omega-3:

In a study you linked: "We suspect that people taking spirulina as a source of vitamin B-12 may get vitamin B-12 deficiency quicker because the analogues in the product block human mammalian cell metabolism in culture and we suspect they will also do this in the living human." I believe Spirulina is one strain of the microalgae mentioned for B12 supplementation. Not to mention that oceanic algae can also contain heavy metals, and is poorly absorbed anyway, due to the high cellulose component of algae. Microalgae oil is an interesting possibility. I remember krill oil was being touted as better than fish oil for a while. I know next to nothing about algae oil though, so I'll accept that's a viable possibility for Omega-3 intake in vegetarians.

Interestingly, violent behaviour was linked with Omega-3 deficiency: 

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.6.1100

http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(04)00935-7/abstract?cc=y=

(There was a show on Catalyst about another double blind placebo-controlled study, but it's lengthy and simply states that increased Omega-3 intake showed a decrease in violent behaviour in prison inmates)

All this talk of cobalamin is assuming the hypothetical vegetarian in question can't just get a cobalamin booster-shot. The LD-50 for cobalamin is so ridiculously high that it's considered less dangerous than water, and many cobalamin shots contain thousands of times the daily required intake for an adult.

Coach Sommer said:

For whatever reason, vegetarianism discussions in the nutrition forum have a habit of dissolving into emotional hand wringing by both sides rather than mature, informative, factual discussions.  

 

If the line of civility is crossed again by any of the participants; I will lock that thread down and then delete without further notice all future threads discussing vegetarianism.  Not because I have any concerns about vegetarianism - but because I will no longer tolerate the resulting juvenile behavior from a small but vocal minority.

 

Bottom line:  What someone else chooses to include or not include in their diet is their business, not yours.  Stop trying to brow beat them into following your own personal preferences.

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

I completely agree. BE & LET BE. 

Instead of one side putting the other down, if you are anti-veg "Ignore" Veg threads and refrain from putting down their PoV. Same with Veg folks. 

One does not have to prove and win over the other in writing..  Just focus on GB threads where you can add something instead of fighting someone. 

When I see people write about how much meat/ red or white they eat, my mind automatically filters out and I think of veg options that would take their place. 

If you are not very pro or anti veg & their viewpoint, easy breezy.. just "ignore & mentally filter those threads". 

For those who want to look into Veg athletic performance here are some examples: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrik_Baboumian- Strongman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushil_Kumar- World Gold winning Wrestler

I'm reading this with great interest.

Before I go on and re-iterating what Coach Sommer wrote I do hope this thread doesn't get locked and that the topic sticks strictly to the nutrional aspects of this discussion rather than any social/ethical discussion on whether it is right or not to eat meat from either side, which is an entirely seperate discussion for an entirely seperate website/forum.

I am currently an omnivore but it is my intention to switch to an IF vegetarian diet while supplementing with sublingual B12 and other vitamins. I have been thinking about this for many reasons actually, the main reason is convenience and speed of preparing food, with a pressure cooker I can make rice and yellow split mung beans in under 15 minutes now (kitchari is high in and a complete protein).

Some other reasons are:

-It's extremely cheap.

-Fast and convenient (rice and yellow mung beans are dry stored so are many vegetables), buying in bulk means I rarely need to shop.

-I find it difficult finding good quality meat (a lot of stock supermarket chicken is full of antibiotics).

-Bio/Organic/Eco meat is much much more expensive and still with no guarantee of anti-biotic freedom.

-Fish is full of bad metals.

Anyway interested to read what other people say on this subject!

There are serious benefits to reducing meat intake! You mentioned most of them in the above. There's no need to go completely vegetarian unless you want to, but your idea sounds great. The money and convenience points are true too. However, farmed fish don't contain appreciable levels of heavy metals, nor do almost all freshwater fish, even if wild. And antibiotics really aren't an issue. The infrequent occasions that chickens get antibiotics does not cause hyperaccumulation in the muscle tissue. It is present, but in miniscule amounts, and I believe they denature after cooking anyway. They even feed chickens a certain arsenic compound, but because the arsenic is chemically bound to the rest of the chemical, and the human body can't digest it, it passes through your digestive system harmlessly. I topped the country in chemistry competitions, so you'll just have to trust me 

There are other reasons to remove meat completely though; all of which are up to you! 

Why do you need to attach a label to how/what you eat? You don't have to become a vegetarian (whatever that might entail ) just to eat a batch of rice and beans that happens to not contain any meat.

vinca_minor said:

Why do you need to attach a label to how/what you eat? You don't have to become a vegetarian (whatever that might entail ) just to eat a batch of rice and beans that happens to not contain any meat.

You are right I did label myself unnecessarily, and trying not to sound like a zealot what I meant to say is that I was going to try not eating meat or eating less meat on a permanent basis, I'll see how I go maybe having a freebie eat out & anything day once a week and see where I go from there.

Another point is I'm also travelling a lot and have very little time to cook, so the small pressure cooker, rice and beans is perfect as I can take it with me, prepare it practically anywhere and don't require a fridge.

Mercurial Flow thanks for that info, good to know!

Coach Sommer said:

Bottom line:  What someone else chooses to include or not include in their diet is their business, not yours.  Stop trying to brow beat them into following your own personal preferences.

 

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

that might be true from a health-perspective but from an ethical point-of-view it works only in one direction: it is not a meat-eaters business if someone is vegan BUT it is an ethical vegans business if someone is eating meat, consuming dairy and thereby actively contributing to the slaughter and rape of billions of animals. thats like saying domestic violence (or even worse) is none of your business because you´re not the victim.

i am sorry i had to bring the ethical aspect into this discussion but you cannot discuss veganism without it. i dont think many of you understand that a vast majority of vegans does it for ethical reasons only. most of the vegans i know would not even try to argue that a vegan diet is healthier than a balanced diet.

That's a very good point DieKatze. Morality and ethics is a moving target unfortunately. Consider certain populations whose only food source is from animal products. Starving in that case overrides ethical choices. I read a great book during college about it, wish I had saved the title. Respecting ethical differences may seem wrong, but not doing so is where a LOT of world conflict comes from.

DieKatze said:

that might be true from a health-perspective but from an ethical point-of-view it works only in one direction: it is not a meat-eaters business if someone is vegan BUT it is an ethical vegans business if someone is eating meat, consuming dairy and thereby actively contributing to the slaughter and rape of billions of animals. thats like saying domestic violence (or even worse) is none of your business because you´re not the victim.

 

i am sorry i had to bring the ethical aspect into this discussion but you cannot discuss veganism without it. i dont think many of you understand that a vast majority of vegans does it for ethical reasons only. most of the vegans i know would not even try to argue that a vegan diet is healthier than a balanced diet.

Yes but those ethical choices/arguments are a personal preference, since I may or may not ethically see the historic slaughter of animals for consumption as wrong or comparable to domestic violence in any way.

The boundaries of ethics are personal, societal etc. for example a get out clause for many German war criminials after WW2 who had committed genocide during WW2, was that genocide was not considered a crime or ethically wrong by the pre-war German state and/or society, subsequently many German criminals of the 3rd Reich were not tried after the war because no "crime" was committed (see Heinz Reinefarth for example). Of course ethically any civilised modern nation sees this as disgusting, it is still however a point of view.

It is a similar situation with the imposed personal preferences and ethics of vegans.

I digress hugely and hope that we stick strictly to nutrition!

DieKatze said:

... that might be true from a health-perspective but from an ethical point-of-view it works only in one direction: it is not a meat-eaters business if someone is vegan BUT it is an ethical vegans business if someone is eating meat ...

Not interested in the slightest.

All nutrition discussions WILL NOT be allowed to digress into arguments about personal interpretations of moral or ethical behavior.  And said discussions WILL restrain themselves to discussing only the nutritional component; or there will not be any discussions of this nature permitted on the forum.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Vegan threads are preprogrammed to self destruct, lol.

Coach Sommer said:

Not interested in the slightest.

All nutrition discussions WILL NOT be allowed to digress into arguments about personal interpretations of moral or ethical behavior. And said discussions WILL restrain themselves to discussing only the nutritional component; or there will not be any discussions of this nature permitted on the forum.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

Couldn't agree with this more, this is a fitness forum, diet only needs to be discussed in reference to performance.

If anyone wants to discuss ethics there are other places to do so.

Oh look, it's this thread again...

Murray Truelove said:

Couldn't agree with this more, this is a fitness forum, diet only needs to be discussed in reference to performance.

If anyone wants to discuss ethics there are other places to do so.

I agree completely, it is a good subject one that I'm interested in, hope it keeps strictly nutritional.

Going back on track as I don't eat eggs, and only use minute amounts of milk and no dairy, unbeknowst to myself I'll be going in the direction of vegan (I sitll don't exactly know what it is, and presume it's just more extreme vegetarianism)

I suppose when I try again to eat rice and beans with vegetables I can report back here that'll be December now since I'm moving house so won't try it until then, although I remember trying a predominantly veg diet last year and found myself lacking energy and craving liver (which I like but don't normally crave).

I had recurring dreams of sausage when I went meatless and was biking 50+ miles per week. A multivitamin helped to resolve that.

DieKatze said:

 

i am sorry i had to bring the ethical aspect into this discussion but you cannot discuss veganism without it. i dont think many of you understand that a vast majority of vegans does it for ethical reasons only. most of the vegans i know would not even try to argue that a vegan diet is healthier than a balanced diet.

Hence why this thread should be titled, "Further Discussion on Issues with Vegetarianism". Veganism is a question of ethics, as it is a lifestyle. Vegetarianism is not, as it is a diet and nothing more. Therefore the ethical debate belongs elsewhere. This thread is about food, not dietary sentiment.

Mercurial Flow said:

Hence why this thread should be titled, "Further Discussion on Issues with Vegetarianism". Veganism is a question of ethics, as it is a lifestyle. Vegetarianism is not, as it is a diet and nothing more. Therefore the ethical debate belongs elsewhere. This thread is about food, not dietary sentiment.

Vegetarianism is definitely a question of ethics and a lifestyle (hence a diet)...not sure how you came to that conclusion

Sean Hunter said:

Vegetarianism is definitely a question of ethics and a lifestyle (hence a diet)...not sure how you came to that conclusion

Most people view their diet as something to fit their lifestyle, not as something that is their lifestyle. That's why vegan/vegetarian/paleo fit into that category. The moment you say "I am" X when referring to a dietary choice you made it your lifestyle. But it's only veganism that majority of the time is for ethical reasons. You can separate the two, but generally speaking someone is vegan because of ethics not performance/optimal health. Unless they have some physical condition that limits them to a vegan diet.

Sean Hunter said:

Vegetarianism is definitely a question of ethics and a lifestyle (hence a diet)...not sure how you came to that conclusion

People with MSUD often have to subscribe to some kind of pseudo-vegetarian diet to deal with their health problems. That doesn't mean that they are at all concerned with animal rights activism. You might be confusing veganism with vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is just a diet, whereas veganism involves discouraging and abstaining from the use of gelatin-based glues, silk, leather and even honey, while also being vegetarian. Veganism relates to all aspects of the person's life, whereas a vegetarian might still wear leather and not concern themselves with anything other than avoiding animal products in food. A diet is not a lifestyle at all. My choice to reduce meat consumption doesn't affect my modes of transport, my choice of clothing, my occupation, et cetera. Not sure how I wouldn't come to that conclusion, frankly...

I'm going to try taking this discussion in a better direction. Has anyone ever read any informative books on diets and lifestyle? The book I'm about to recommend has an interesting title, but don't let it make you think it's judgmental. It explores why people choose the ways they eat. It's called Diet Cults by Matt Fitzgerald.

Maybe we can salvage this thread into something truly useful instead of differences of opinion getting out of hand...

SarahsWhere said:

I'm going to try taking this discussion in a better direction. Has anyone ever read any informative books on diets and lifestyle? The book I'm about to recommend has an interesting title, but don't let it make you think it's judgmental. It explores why people choose the ways they eat. It's called Diet Cults by Matt Fitzgerald.

Maybe we can salvage this thread into something truly useful instead of differences of opinion getting out of hand...

Well I for one would be interested in the pit falls, cautions, advice etc. for a diet which would involve the cutting and/or elimination of meat, fish, eggs, dairy, cheese, simple sugars and milk, one based heavily on yellow split mung beans and rice but with the inclusion of animal derivates such as butter, supplemented by sublingual B12 and occasional multi vitamins, whatever this diet or lifestyle is called I am interested!

Total elimination for the rest of your life? I don't think it needs to be called anything specific. What kind of rice?

It sounds extremely boring and unappetizing to me, but I really really like food of different kinds and ethnic varieties since I've traveled literally around the world. My mom's husband eats like a bird, just because he's simply not interested in eating.

Would there be a specific goal in mind such as : preservation of muscle mass, high energy, mental focus, etc? What you're describing would be sufficient to survive. Not sure how good it would be for building and/or sustaining strength or muscle tissue since that's not my expertise. Anyone care to elaborate on the specifics of what Aspirant is looking for?