Veganism Is a Highly Dangerous and Unscientific Diet
Vegetarians come in several flavors:
- Ovo-vegetarians eat eggs,
- Lacto-vegetarians eat dairy products but not eggs,
- Ovo-lacto-vegetarians eat both eggs and dairy products.
- Pescatarians eat fish but no other animals.
- Fruitarians subsist only on fruits.
- Vegans eat nothing derived from animals.
- Vegans' Creed and Proselytisation
Of course, there are now all sorts bizarre, transitory diet fads that have grown into veritable cults:
- Flexitarians (aka Semi-tarians) primarily eat vegetarian diet but occasionally eat meat or fish.
- Freegans are vegetarians; however, some eat found meat, dairy and eggs than let food go to waste.
- Beegans avoid animal products in their diet, except for honey.
- Pollovegatarians are flexitarians: they consume meat (=poultry/fowl only). They do not eat fish or seafood.
The above four are unconventional and largely unapproved by spiritualists and people who adhere to religious traditions that promote vegetarianism.
Vegans have claimed that a plants-only diet offers a multitude of health benefits, is better for the environment, and is the only ethical choice. While some of them respect the dietary choices of others, some of them proselytize with religious-like fervor and are working to get their diet adopted by all of humanity.
In her new book, Vegan Betrayal: Love, Lies, And Hunger In A Plants-Only World, Mara Kahn questions those beliefs, pointing out that no human population has ever endured on a plants-only diet; that while some studies have shown short-term health benefits, long-term follow-up is missing; that long-term vegans frequently experience “failure to thrive,” go off their diet, and feel better when they return to eating meat; and that veganism might actually harm the environment and might not even save animal lives overall.
Health claims
According to Kahn, much of the published nutritional research is faulty: in some studies, the authors asserts, vegetarians are lumped with vegans and occasional meat-eaters. Not one respected study has ever shown a long-term vegan diet to be healthier than any other, and most research uncovers troubling deficiencies. They claim meat-free diets are healthier, but healthier than what? Than the typical unhealthy American diet [?]
Control for lifestyle habits, as every useful nutrition study must, and then compare a vegetarian or vegan diet to one of whole plants and judicious amounts of wild-caught fish or pastured meat—like the seafood-loving Mediterranean diet or the animal-adoring French diet—and the health advantages either disappear or are greatly surpassed.
The author adds that research has shown that vegan deficits in many key nutrients including iodine, iron, zinc, taurine, vitamins A, D and B12, selenium, protein, calcium and omega-3 fatty acids. Yes, it is possible to get adequate nutrition from a vegan diet; but in practice, many vegans don’t. She observes vegans eating huge amounts of carbs and vegan junk foods and skimping on their protein and vitamin needs. This is particularly a concern for teenage girls who are still growing; teenage girls are a big part of the vegetarian demographic.
She says a famous Seventh-day Adventist study found that “vegetarians live longer than meat-eaters,” but fish eaters were lumped with vegetarians and they live even longer. And there are plenty of other groups that eat meat and live longer than Seventh-day Adventists, including Okinawans and Sardinians. No studies show that veganism is the healthiest of diets and some suggest that it is not.
Vegans often cite Campbell’s controversial book The China Study, but the subjects in his study were not vegans and most of them weren’t even vegetarians.
Kahn reports that more and more disillusioned ex-vegans are offering testimonials like Angelina Jolie’s claim that an all-plants diet “nearly killed me.” She hypothesizes that vegans may feel better at first simply because they are eating fewer calories and have replaced processed and junk foods with healthier fruits, vegetables, and grains. But the feeling doesn’t last.
She points out that the standard nutritional recommendations to eat more veggies and fruits are about adding more plants to the diet, not about eating only plants.
Bottom line: Research shows that a mainly plant-based diet is healthy, but the findings can’t be used to justify a plants-only diet. I agree with this conclusion.
Vegans are often malnourished
The author of "Vegan Betrayal: Love, Lies, And Hunger In A Plants-Only World" reports that there is a high dropout rate. “Once you pull out all animal-sourced food, a whole lot of nutrients have suddenly gone missing or exist in deficient amounts.”
While it is possible to get adequate nutrition from plants alone, it requires a lot of knowledge and discipline, and in practice many vegetarians begin to suffer from insidious borderline malnutrition.
Kahn argues that dietary recommendations tend to underestimate the amount of protein needed for health. When vegans get hungry they tend to gorge on carbs when what they need is protein.
“Too-thin vegans are eating animal flesh after all: their own.” Protein starvation leads to self-cannibalization.
Vegans often rely on soy for protein, but soy can [sometimes] be harmful to health in various ways [although it does also have proven health benefits]. One of the prominent side effects of all-plant diets is flatulence, which can range from a mild inconvenience to a serious problem.
It may be possible for individuals with naturally lower protein needs who can tolerate large amounts of legumes, lead low-stress lives (a low-stress life, what’s that?) and keep a vigilant eye on daily quantity, quality, and amino acid completeness. Easy? No, it is not.
Arguments from evolution
Kahn finds that vegan arguments from evolution unconvincing.
History and purity
Kahn delves into the history of vegetarianism and veganism. Much of it is bound up with ideals of purity. Fasts and dietary prohibitions, food-related rituals, and purification rites have been prominent in most religions. Pythagoras’ followers could eat meat, but not bone marrow, because they believed it concealed messages from the gods. For them, it was beans that were absolutely prohibited. Go figure!
In some cultures, specific animals and foods were endowed with special meanings. Group cohesiveness was promoted when hunters distributed meat to others in their tribe. Shared meals have an important social function in today’s world, from family dinners to wedding celebrations and Thanksgiving feasts. Our dietary choices and customs are more emotion-driven than fact-driven.
Food ethics
As human history progressed, the circle of compassion enlarged to include animals. I think it’s fair to say that the majority of vegans and vegetarians chose their path mainly because they are repelled by the idea of killing animals. But Kahn suggests that perhaps they should examine their conscience more closely.
Don’t they realize they are eating animals in many plant foods? The FDA allows 60 insect fragments per 100 gram candy bar; 225 insect parts and 4.5 rodent hairs or excreta per 100 g pasta; 10 whole insects and 35 fly eggs per 8 ounces of raisins.
To be consistent maybe vegans should be more reluctant to kill plants. As Kahn reports, new research indicates that plants have a degree of awareness, change their behavior in response to environmental conditions, communicate with other plants by chemical signals, and some researchers have even suggested they may perceive pain. These are intriguing findings, but I don’t see any reason to believe plants can suffer.
Kahn says:
Our food choices involve ethics, no doubt about that, but trying to impose a single moral code of eating on all people is profoundly unethical. In following a well-planned vegan diet, an unknown percentage of us will suffer, our health and quality of life. Surely the compassion that lies at the heart of ethical veganism extends to human animals.
Environmental concerns
It is generally accepted that plants-only diets are better for the environment. Kahn suggests that, that may not be true.
Even if you repudiate the eating of animals, you are killing animals by proxy at every meal. Consider the field mice, pheasants, snakes and tender young rabbits—all of the innocent wild beings diced and sliced by the tiller that prepares the soil for your favorite grains.
If we gradually moved to the larger foraging mammals only, … and raised them on their natural diet of 100% grass using a no-till, pasture-forage model, this might mean fewer total animals killed (domestic and wild) than in the all-vegan model. Let’s give this intriguing idea a closer look.” She goes on to present a plausible argument.
She argues for ethical hunters, sustainable agriculture, abolishing factory farms, and being kind to the animals we are going to eat.
Woo intrudes
On the subject of veganism, Kahn’s information is evidence-based and reliable and her reasoning plausible.
Conclusion
Ideology can be persuasive, but harsh reality often ruins an appealing idea. People can die from fanatical diet beliefs.
What did my own journey teach a comically naïve if earnest youth who thirsted for carnal knowledge and hungered to abolish all animal suffering? Its hard truth was this: the very real dangers of a rigid ideology, born of the mind and the emotions, which does not line up with the biological realities of the body. For as much as I longed to honor and respect my animal brethren by not eating them, the earthly reality is that I need to do exactly that.
Source: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vegan-betrayal-the-myths-vs-the-realities-of-a-plants-only-diet/
Comments
Post a Comment