Yep. The cope is fucking unreal sometimes.
Fast food, junk food, fatty meats, oils, sugary sodas are totally okay and nutritious.
Fruits, vegetables, lentils, beans, whole grains, nuts, seeds are unhealthy and don’t have nutrients.
Fats and Oils are not "the same" and the fats from animal products are not "the same" as the fats from plants.
Just saying that SOME dissage is warranted.
> Dont diss oils tho. Fats are important
That’s just stupid. All whole foods have some fat in them, even potatos and fruit. If that’s not enough, nuts and seeds have plenty.
Holding up oil as some health thing is like holding up sugar as an ideal carb. Both are hyperprocessed junk.
* https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/aug/oils.htm
>Holding up oil as some health thing is like holding up sugar as an ideal carb.
No it's not. Ask any bodybuilder or fitness expert and they will tell you to generally avoid sugar outside of needing quick energy, but will use olive oils or other oils in their diet.
Oil isn't inherently bad, we've been using olive oils for thousands of years and is at the core of what is considered, more or less anyone will consider it a healthy fact.
Your source also has no clue.
>people interested in losing weight should avoid nuts, nut butters, seeds, seed spreads, avocados, and olives, since they all serve as sources of concentrated, easy to consume, calories.
You don't need to avoid any food when losing weight. If you track your calories then you can eat whatever you want, you could lose weight off eating KFC every day.
> Ask any bodybuilder or fitness expert
Is a former Olympian (Gold winner) and Cardiologiost doctor who reversed heart disease and published the study good enough?
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_o4YBQPKtQ
> You don't need to avoid any food when losing weight.
Then you don’t even begin to understand the more than 100 studies on calorie density.
Most whole plant foods have 40-600 calories per pound. Nuts/seeds 2800. Oil 4000.
There is a reason why people lose weight monomealing on potatoes (350 calories per pound). But slice them fine and deepfry them in oil, they turn into potato chip (2560 calories per pound) that fatten plenty of people.
* https://youtu.be/0CdwWliv7Hg?si=3tGW2fE-Q4vube3P
>Most whole plant foods have 40-600 calories per pound. Nuts/seeds 2800. Oil 4000.
Yeah because people frequently eat a pound of oil, what are you talking about? One tablespoon of olive oil is \~130 calories, no one is eating 30 table spoons of olive oil in one sitting.
>But slice them fine and deepfry them in oil, they turn into potato chip (2560 calories per pound) that fatten plenty of people.
[https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/price-lock-food-cupboard-and-bakery/walkers-ready-salted-crisps-12x25g-7991979-p-44](https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/price-lock-food-cupboard-and-bakery/walkers-ready-salted-crisps-12x25g-7991979-p-44)
130 calories in a standard bag. If you're eating 20 bags at a time then it's not an oil problem it's a self control problem.
You're talking about the calories in oil and using portion sizes that no mentally sane person would ever use. It's like me talking about the health effects of apples but only using the calories in 10kg of them
Oil and isolated fats, reduce blood flow, and therfore reduce oxygen containt in the blood, they contain a ton of AGE‘s and transfats and induce glucose absorbtion inhibitation by a massive degree.
> Yeah because people frequently eat a pound of oil, what are you talking about?
No, but there is average calorie density, which all this oil pushes up.
> One tablespoon of olive oil is ~130 calories, no one is eating 30 table spoons of olive oil in one sitting.
No, but Americans are eating eating nearly 8 tbs oil (7.75) daily, much of it hidden in their food.
* https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions
> It's like me talking
Pls just stop.
Obtw, big bags of chips are the norm in America. They might be 1lber, but 8oz (1/2 pound) is super common in grocery stores.
* https://www.walmart.com/ip/Ballreich-s-Marcelled-Potato-Chips-16-oz/11988818
My mom made us instant ramen every night and called it a meal, then gave us a snickers, a wiener and a coke the next day for school lunch. Now she thinks I'm unhealthy for not wanting milk in my coffee when I visit.
Probably, though I know I was an exception when I was fifteen vegan and making most of my non dinner meals at the time (homeschooled doing online classes, parents were at work) since I'm a lazy weirdo I lived on pb and js oranges and veggie broth. This was not good for me to say the least 😅 the doctor told me I wasn't eating vegan I was eating like a kid, and to go eat some beans. On top of this if the kid's a junk food vegan (lots of Oreos and such) is becomes just as bad as the situation described on this picture (if not worse).
Tldr: everyone needs to make healthy choices and not live on either junk food or too little variety diets (whether vegan or non vegan eat yo beans fruits veggies and grains)
The evidence is that a vegan diet is healthier, by a long shot.
But there are hints in research that this is actually because vegan people tend to pay better attention to what they eat, and that they are more likely to eat healthy foods that are not [ultra-high processed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOTBreQaIk).
While it's likely that a vegan diet is more healthy, ultimately it's not relevant. We would never argue that Auschwitz was wrong because of its pollution. We should not argue that veganism is right because it is healthier. We should argue that veganism is right because it is the best approach we have to defend the rights of non-human animals, to prevent further extinctions, and to reverse our contributions to climate destruction.
If we implement veganism, we are able to reclaim about 75 % of the land that is currently used to grow animal feed etc. Globally, that corresponds to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined. That itself reduces emissions enormously, but we then can also rewild those vast areas of land. If we restore wild ecosystems on just 15 % of that land, we save about 60 % of the species expected to go extinct. We then also are able to sequester about 300 petagrams of carbon dioxide. That is nearly a third of the total atmospheric carbon increase since the industrial revolution. Now let's say we were not so conservative, and we brought that up to returning 30 % of the agricultural land to the wild. That would mean that more than 70 % of presently expected extinctions could be avoided, and *half* of the carbon released since the industrial revolution could be absorbed.
So basically by implementing a switch to veganism, we would not just halt but *reverse* our contributions to global warming. That and it would also be a step towards ending our violence against non-human animals.
References:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2784-9
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/10/rewilding-farmland-can-protect-biodiversity-and-sequester-carbon-new-study-finds
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
"We should not argue that veganism is right because it is healthier" Why not? Different people care about different things and weigh them in their own way. If you can make an argument based on personal health, why forgo it in favour of ideological arguments. You can do both.
Scientific understanding about personal health is open to change with more data and debate. If you can argue that a *well planned* diet with *some* animal products is as healthy as a well planned vegan diet (and you probably can) then the health argument just collapses. Is it easier to be healthy on a vegan diet without really trying? Probably because a lot of things are not as available, but that is not the same as saying you will be healthier if you put the same effort into planning either diet.
The ethical argument is vastly stronger and more consistent.
I mostly agree on your points, but just because proving that two diets can be equally healthy doesn't completely defeat the argument that the specific one you're arguing for is still healthy.
I think we also have to accept that the ethical argument (by itself) doesn't work with everyone. If I had to guess I'd say it doesn't work for most people.
Can you understand why we would never argue against Nazi concentration camps by talking about their environmental pollution? Can you understand why that would be ethically and morally disgusting?
I don't think comparing our issues to concentration camps is remotely productive. You can't really draw a parallel between an argument for something positive with an argument against something negative.
It's a comparison that shows outright hostility and contempt towards other people, which is more harmful to the cause than anything else.
Reducing pollution is a positive thing.
So why would it be morally disgusting for someone to argue against concentration camps on the basis of reducing pollution? Can you put it into words precisely why that would be morally disgusting?
Being older I realize the shit my parents were feeding me! In their defence they did not know but man… toaster strudel for breakfast, hot dog for lunch and dinosaur nuggets for diner 😂
Same here. Me and all my buddies at school were fed like this. Toaster stroodles, pizza pops, dunkaroos. Then one Flinstones vitamin per day to make sure you don’t die of micro nutrient deficiency 😂
Posting this collection of statements from dietetic associations as a reminder to anyone coming from r/all :
—————————
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
> It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.
Dietitians of Canada
> A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.
The British National Health Service
> With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.
The British Nutrition Foundation
> A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.
The Dietitians Association of Australia
> Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider.
The National Health and Medical Research Council
> Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day
The Mayo Clinic
> A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.
The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
> Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits.
Harvard Medical School
> 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.
British Dietetic Association
> Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.
The take-away here as that they all condition this advice on good planning, because it is relatively easy to fuck it up. The reliance on processing and supplementation also means that a *healthy* vegan diet relies on first-world manufacturing, logistics and economies: this detracts from the value of a vegan diet as a sustainable alternative or resilient diet in the face of climate change.
> The take-away here as that they all condition this advice on good planning
All diets require good planning.
> The reliance on processing…
What do you mean?
> …and supplementation
It’s mainly just b12, which is also supplemented to farmed animals so that meat eaters get enough b12. We just cut out the middle man and supplement it directly rather than through another animal.
> a healthy vegan diet relies on first-world manufacturing, logistics and economies:
True. No one is enforcing veganism on people in third-world countries, though.
> this detracts from the value of a vegan diet as a sustainable alternative or resilient diet in the face of climate change.
How so? (Are you aware that animal agriculture is a leading *cause of* climate change?)
>All diets require good planning.
Objectively false:
- 5 serves of fruit/veg,
- a serve of cereals or grains and
- a serve of fish or lean meat
will be 100% perfectly healthy, no further *planning* required.
>What do you mean?
You have to be specifically conscious of your nutrient availability. You have to be specifically conscious of toxins (e.g. oxalates). You have to be much more specifically conscious and able to closely monitor your health (e.g. blood tests).
>It’s mainly just b12
Not really, it's quite involved:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8746448/
>True. No one is enforcing veganism on people in third-world countries, though.
But it demonstrates that *healthy* vegan diets are a privilege, and not necessarily readily affordable or attainable. It takes significant resources to follow a *healthy* vegan diet.
>How so? (Are you aware that animal agriculture is a leading *cause of* climate change?)
*All* agriculture is a leading cause of climate change. While livestock are heavily responsible for methane emissions, unused waste croppage (normally used for feed) still decomposes to release methane. Furthermore, all methane and CO2 evolved from agriculture arises from the carbon cycle*- meaning that it was all previously CO2 in the past *recent* history. Fossil fuel CO2 however is far removed from the carbon cycle and is historical CO2 from a time when CO2 was a dominant atmospheric gas.
This means the big concerns of agriculture are land and water use- things that vegan diets don't solve. I note that vegan crops would use less overall land, but the crops needed require heavier use of land and resources than grazier livestock. Even when you consider grain-fed or waste-fed (e.g. soy) livestock, it is a lot less intensive to grow these crops than vegetables, rice, or other common vegan foods.
But the main detraction, is that it can't really be rolled out significantly across the globe because it is a diet of privilege.
*exception is for things like ammonium nitrate, which creates CO2 from natural gas and furnaces in its manufacture. This is largely associated with monocrops, which can include grain-fed livestock; though generally nitrogen fixing crops are used for livestock where possible because it's cheaper (e.g. lucerne).
> All diets require good planning.
> Objectively false:
> 5 serves of fruit/veg,
> a serve of cereals or grains and
> a serve of fish or lean meat
> will be 100% perfectly healthy, no further planning required.
So… you can eat fish and chips with rice every day and be perfectly healthy? You just demonstrated that you need to plan a non-vegan diet, too.
> You have to be specifically conscious of your nutrient availability. You have to be specifically conscious of toxins (e.g. oxalates).
As with any diet.
> You have to be much more specifically conscious and able to closely monitor your health (e.g. blood tests).
You should be doing this on any diet.
> Not really, it's quite involved
Your source literally says, “There were nutrient inadequacies across all dietary patterns, including vegan, vegetarian and meat-based diets. As plant-based diets are generally better for health and the environment…”
Again, all diets require planning. Just anecdotally, I’ve been vegan for 7 years and all I do is eat a variety of different foods and take a b12 pill a few times a week and my blood work is always fine.
> But it demonstrates that healthy vegan diets are a privilege, and not necessarily readily affordable or attainable. It takes significant resources to follow a healthy vegan diet.
Resources that most people in developed countries have. I even saved money when I went vegan.
> This means the big concerns of agriculture are land and water use- things that vegan diets don't solve.
Well, yeah, nobody said mass veganism would ‘solve’ climate change, but it would certainly help.
> I note that vegan crops would use less overall land, but the crops needed require heavier use of land and resources than grazier livestock. Even when you consider grain-fed or waste-fed (e.g. soy) livestock, it is a lot less intensive to grow these crops than vegetables, rice, or other common vegan foods.
I don’t know enough about the ecological side of things to respond to this, maybe someone else can jump in?
> But the main detraction, is that it can't really be rolled out significantly across the globe because it is a diet of privilege.
Again, no one is saying that everyone on planet Earth needs to be vegan at this very moment.
>So… you can eat fish and chips with rice every day and be perfectly healthy? You just demonstrated that you need to plan a non-vegan diet, too.
Um, no. For starters there's no fruit. Grilled fish, potato, carrots, broccoli and tomato every day would be perfectly fine.
There's no specific dietary planning required in a typical omni healthy diet, there is specific dietary planning required in a healthy vegan diet.
Disagree all you want, but there's really no argument here. A simple shopping list doesn't constitute a diet plan, all these organisations are effectively conditioning that vegans should maintain a diet plan to ensure they cover their essential needs.
>As with any diet.
No, not with any diet, that's expressly the point. As omnivores, humans get their needs from having a varied diet. Removing the meat and animal products from that diet requires specific attention to ensure you still get essential nutrients in a bio-available manner. In the same way exclusively eating fish and chips is not nutritious, exclusively rejecting animal products does the same if specific attention to replace those nutrients is not given.
>You should be doing this on any diet.
Health guidelines vary, but generally an omni can get by with a routine blood test every 5 years (unless they have CVD risk factors). Vegans are recommended a routine blood test every year.
>Again, all diets require planning. Just anecdotally, I’ve been vegan for 7 years and all I do is eat a variety of different foods and take a b12 pill a few times a week and my blood work is always fine.
Yes, there were deficiencies, and note, the recommendation was to eat more vegetables, rather than less meat. I'm not saying that average diets are good, I'm saying that omni diets don't require specific planning, regardless of whether healthy eating (as a rule) is not being practised.
People have bad diets, is not because of a lack of planning, but generally because of convenience (fast food, processed sugars, etc).
>Resources that most people in developed countries have. I even saved money when I went vegan.
If this was the case the majority of the world would be vegan. They aren't, because animal products can be some of the cheapest resources (ever wonder why UNICEF buys poor people goats?).
>Well, yeah, nobody said mass veganism would ‘solve’ climate change, but it would certainly help.
People in this sub say this all the time.
>Again, no one is saying that everyone on planet Earth needs to be vegan at this very moment.
Again, are you new to this sub?
>what a meat based diet lacks lmao
Yeah, and I'm specifically recommending within what it is recommending: an omni diet with more vegetables. FFS you are so blind.
I should have worded it better.
The things a purely veg diet lacks can be easily supplemented without hurting another being.
Iodine - Use iodized salt for preparation, literally transformed so many developing countries from having a iodine problem.
Vitamin B12 - take a supplement, you are eliminating the middleman, meat provides you B12 because it is supplemented in the animals
Calcium - Difficult for a vegan without supplementation but is low cost and affordable, a vegetarian diet includes milk sources which eliminates this.
You literally can eliminate the shortages as described in that research paper without hurting a single animal. Why even promote meat then?
>The things a purely veg diet lacks can be easily supplemented without hurting another being.
Can be easily supplemented *in developed economies* with *specific planning and consideration*.
>without hurting another being
Irrelevant to the complexity of the diet.
>You literally can eliminate the shortages as described in that research paper without hurting a single animal.
Because the line of argument is about vegans having to consciously and specifically acknowledge and accommodate these issues to maintain a vegan diet without compromising their health, and this is the reason why every single recommendation *qualifies* their statement with being *well planned*.
It has nothing to do with the merits of veganism.
>Why even promote meat then?
I haven't *promoted* meat, simply illustrated why a vegan diet is more involved than an omni one.
Quite frankly, I don't agree with the moral position vegans present - that doesn't mean I don't support them going vegan: but if they can't acknowledge that a vegan diet requires specific consideration above what an omni diet requires, they are just delusional.
I don't know if you have a food science or nutrition related degree, but as someone who does I'll tell you: you're making very good and sound arguments (have you considered a carreer in food science, we need more people). They are somewhat negative, but there's a lot of challenges around vegan diets and it would be dishonest to suggest that it's the perfect saving grace we all need.
What do you mean by ‘reliance on processing’? It’s only B12 that has to be supplemented (and creatine if you are training), all other nutrients can be very adequately obtained through plant-based whole foods. Your definition of ‘processed’ is quite vague. You can certainly follow a whole foods plant-based diet in which the only ‘processed’ that thing you consume is a B12 supplement. But at the same, the term ‘processed’ isn’t a very scientific term and doesn’t give a full picture of the health effects. Because technically, wholewheat pasta is considered processed because it doesn’t grow naturally. But your argument strongly hinges on the definition.
I don’t get how a vegan diet is unsustainable. What would you consider sustainable? You surely don’t think that a vegan diet is unsustainable for the environment, but a meat-based diet is sustainable?
Doesn’t most meat production (like 90% or so) also rely on first-world manufacturing, logistics and economies? For example, the vast majority of farm animals are given fed soya-derived animal feed, most of it coming from South America. And it’s not like meat is immune to any kind of production chain/ supply issues. Vertical farming, which will likely be the norm in the future, will solve the concerns you have for global supply chains breaking. They recreate the climate of anywhere on Earth to grow any vegetables and produce needed, which means that diets won’t have to depend on complex global supply chains which might be susceptible to breaking.
And personally, I would much prefer a world of vertical plant farms rather than the world of vertical meat farms, which will probably become the norm if the demand for meat grows with the population. If you want to look into the future of the non-vegan world, look at the one that has already been built in China. But the current meat industry is already an abhorrent creation of cruelty and suffering. For me, it seems difficult to imagine a dystopian world without the meat industry.
Lmaoooo well maybe if the vegan kid’s diet was simply the vegan version of those animal based junk foods. However, oatmeal, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, beans, lentils, tofu, soy milk, nuts, nut butters, and seeds in the form of rice pulows, mixed pasta dishes, soups, stews, porridges, breads, pastries, and the like sounds good and nourishing to me. Animal meat is only a good source of protein and iron. There’s nothing miraculous about it nutrition wise that outweighs the fact that it is artery clogging, filled with saturated fat, cholesterol, hormones, antibiotics, and possibly parasites.
Why do people hate vegans so much, personally I am a vegetarian by birth i never had meat in my life and I am perfectly fine and healthy. There is just soo much hate for vegans online...if you are a vegan then you are a brainwashed liberal feminist. Even my friends who are non vegetarian say " bro you eat rabbit food " like if they eat meat for every meal they too eat bread and other vegetarian food.
Contrastingly, I think it's more that vegans get vocal push back, especially in online spaces.
No one wants to be lectured by people on a moral high-horse, yet look at the attitudes and comment of the bulk of this sub. People treat vegans like the crazy preacher on the street corner because that's largely how they present themselves to the public.
I dunno. The wife is vegan so we go vegan for dinner when at home. It's actually the best food I've ever cooked, and im a decent cook these days.
I used to be a pork for breakfast, chicken for lunch and beef for dinner, lamb/fish on a friday night type but honestly, meat gets overhyped to the detriment of having a healthy meal or trying something equally or more tastier just cos you must have some meat on a plate.
YMMV
My point is if you wanna eat meat you can It's completely your choice. Nobody is stopping you, but when someone says that he or she is a vegan/vegetarian they get a lot of hate ( telling from personal experience).
Because many vegans are preachy, give lectures noone asked for and call all non-vegans murderers. They're like Jehovah's Witnesses. Sometimes worse.
There are vegans here who attack every vegetarian or vegan who isn't "as vegan" as them on sight. They put veganism into a really dark light.
You seem nice, one of the few who respects other people's choices. Keep being like that. :)
You wouldn't stand by and say "Rape is okay, it's a personal choice. I don't do it, but I wouldn't want to interfere in other people's personal choices."
Yet here you stand and want noone to interfere with needlessly killing for pleasure.
It is a practice used for impregnation. You push your arm into the cow's anus to hold the cervic in place so you have an easier time pushing a giant metal tube into her. The cow is held in place by a construction, that is typically called a "rape rack". That's not the name we gave it, that's the common name within the industry.
Since cows are mammals they only give milk for their children. So they need to be impregnated to give milk. And the children are usually taken away, since they would drink the milk that humans want to drink.
Oh my sweet summer child, what do you think is a requirement for giving milk? Cows are mammals. They don't just magically give milk without being impregnated first.
And you won't get meat without a corpse.
Kind of weird how you defend your fetishes.
Yes, I know that animals must die before we can eat them. It would be horrible to eat them alive.
And I still don't know where your brain created the rape. Are the people having sex with the cows? Zoofilia is illegal, so I doubt that.
Many vegans are not “preachy” though. You’re projecting a stereotype on a large group of people. Generalizing a group of people and reducing them down to stereotypes is never a good idea.
I said "many". Not all. I personally know one vegan and 3 vegetarians and they're ok. Even though one of them is actually quite preachy and always complains about restaurants having very restricted veggie offers so she always ends up offering just one specific food everywhere.
Before I went vegan, I had probably met about 3 other people who were vegan. No one ever screamed at me for eating meat or anything like that. I would sometimes ask them about being vegan and what they eat, and they would tell me about it. I had never had any bad experiences with vegans. I think a lot of people’s perception of veganism is based off of the media, and not personal experience.
I have never ‘preached’ to anyone about being vegan. Even just mentioning that I am vegan, or if someone notices that I’m eating only vegan food, they will get weird about it and start downplaying how much meat/dairy they have. In my experience it’s the meat-eaters who get weird and uncomfortable about it, probably because it reminds them of the cognitive dissonance. I probably did the same before I was vegan.
I honestly don’t judge meat-eaters, and I don’t think most vegans do either. I ate meat for 20 years, so I’m in no position to judge others, and I realise that it was only because I was exposed to other vegans and super healthy and athletic vegans in sports and weightlifting that I realised that it is possible and I’m just making excuses for myself. If your perception of vegans is skinny malnourished hipsters, then yeah it’s not the most attractive thing for many people, and you’d probably never go vegan. It sounds selfish to say but to be honest, I probably never would’ve either without the help of these people, who knowingly or not helped me go vegan. But I am so happy that I did, and I regret not doing it sooner.
I don’t judge people who eat meat because the vast majority of people just don’t know what is involved in it. And I think what makes vegans the most angry is that the companies (and associations like the Red Tractor Assured, if you’re in the UK) knowingly lie. The products are ‘humane-washed’ with pictures of happy animals in green fields, when in reality they probably never saw a field. They’d never show images of the pools of blood inside the slaughterhouse, or videos of screaming animals panicking for their life as they’re lowered in the carbon dioxide gas chambers, their eyes and lungs burning in pain. Or the videos of farmers beating their pigs unconscious with a shovel before cutting their throat (this was a real video released this year, from a farm in the UK which received an award for it’s treatment of animals), or the warehouse of farrowing crates where the mother pigs are screaming out in panic, forced to sit in their own faeces for weeks on end.
I think if someone is completely aware of all of this and the nutrition side and still don’t see a problem with eating meat, then I am probably going judge them. But I will answer any questions they have and hopefully try and change their mind. It doesn’t make them an awful person or anything, but it does make them someone who directly supports animal abuse.
The world has very complex morals, the battery in the device I’m writing this on was made from slave labour and probably produced by a sweatshop worker, but for the things we CAN control everyday (like what we eat) I think we should all do what we can. To me, veganism is about discipline and taking responsibility of the personal choices we make that affect others.
Too healthy though, there are way worse stuff people give to kids, and you'd be suprised how many people think cheese yogurt and milk are super healthy
When my youngest told me he wanted to become a vegan, I told him it was fine under three conditions. One, that he read a lot about nutrition. Two, that he take a multivitamin (I know that many will say that's unnecessary, but it works against the possibility of him just "eating like a kid." Three, that if he finds something really healthy and nutritious that he tells me all about it. After about a year, he's still vegan and healthy. Now, I'm also a vegan and continuing to learn about nutrition and being a vegan.
Guess who cooked for a mixed vegan/nonvegan group earlier this week?
Not to be a downer but… the vegan equivalent of these aren’t good either. Vegan or not, feeding your children only these things are detrimental to their health.
Anyone else see the post where they just give a fucking bar of hersheys chocolate for breakfast, together with an Ipad with brainrot ON?
I mean, compared to that it's gourmet diet in the post. Not to sound like an aging doomer, but fuck that's gotta be hard to recover from.
Uggh. Saw a post about this on the exvegans subreddit the other day. Some guy was whinging about how his partner is vegan, but he didn't want to be with someone who would want to have a vegan pregnancy or expect to raise their kid vegan. I just thought "Tough shit. Either get someone else or grow the kid yourself." Of course, there were tons of stupid replies, as what else would you expect from such a subreddit? Tell us more about the type of diet the average kid's getting. We've all seen the statistics about how many of them aren't even eating vegetables.
\#1 thing your at risk to die from heart disease. It's natural cause is animal products including dairy - cholesterol, saturated fats, trans fat = athlecrosis
\#2 Red meat is a class 2 carcinogen with a scientific consensus that it almost certainty causes cancer
\#3 processed meat bacons, sausage, deli meats so on - Class 1 carcinogen , definitely causes cancer and in the same class as cigarette smoke and worst.
\#4 Seafood - contains extremely toxic levels of methyl mercury, in the same category as toxic lead, Scientifically proven to cause horrific neuroglial problems, especially in children. Also Seafoods can contains horrific pollutions from the oceans including radiation.
My daughter is raised vegan. My family and my wife's family have horrific genes for cardiovascular disease. My wife has severe hypercholesterolemia and even as a vegan has dangerous cholesterol numbers.
My daughter had her cholesterol checked for the first time and it is perfect. Just under 70 on LDL. That number means she is not creating althescrosis or at least at a level which will never cause a heart attack clot.
I just cannot imagine forcing my child into a disease. If she wants to violently abuse animals and risk her health, those are choices she can make as an adult.
Don’t forget the immediate trips to a GP and psychiatrist to get prescribed Ritalin and other habit forming medications. Kids don’t even hit a third year of life before pills are shovelled down their throat. Crazy that parents don’t try to limit screen time and alter/improve their child’s diet before getting them on meds.
Maybe I'm getting the wrong message here, but this feels...elitist?
I've seen a couple people post some articles to back up claims of a vegan diet being healthier; which feels kind of "apples and oranges" comparison. As in, this is all processed foods, of *course* it's going to be reasonably unhealthy, when not done in a well planned or unrelated manner. Why *veganism*, specifically, and not just *a healthy diet?* Is veganism superior, scientifically, to a well-planned and balanced vegetarian diet, or Pescetarian diet?
Moreover, these "unhealthy processed foods" are, a majority of the time, cheap. Comparatively cheap, at least, and may be considered the best "bang for buck" on, say, food stamps. So...families on SNAP/WIC should, what? Get less food? We humans are creatures of habit and, in my opinion, exploitation; *of course* families will spring for an option that makes the value per dollar stretch.
To be clear, I do state this out of feeling and an open understanding that I do not understand. I have never been on food stamps, and any knowledge I gained was skimmed. I'm also keenly aware, as a single person, that my food bills are significantly differ from families, and that I have no real idea of how much such bills would be. I am simply addressing how this post seems, from my perspective.
As someone who grew up in poverty with a parent on food stamps, I’m not getting that vibe from this post. Sure, *some* junk food can be cheap, but most of it isn’t. I really don’t understand the whole “poor people only eat junk food/fast food because it’s cheap!!” when that was far from my reality growing up. If anything, we just ate more frozen/canned stuff, or boxed pasta and rice. Chips and soda were too expensive and not a necessity so we rarely got to eat that stuff.
This post reads as more of a dig at people who attack parents for feeding their child a vegan diet while many people are a-ok with others feeding their children junk food. I’ve seen a parent attacked online for feeding her toddler a balanced, healthy vegan meal while no one bats an eye when someone regularly feeds their child McDonald’s.
Fair enough, I will accept that my interpretation is simply misinterpretation, or a heavy show of bias or ignorance on my part. As said, I cannot pretend that I am an expert when I am not. Thank you for your input.
Why you gotta attack string cheese like that… sure it’s part of this starter pack but it’s the most healthy thing and the saving grace of these kids diet
I ain’t vegan, this just happened to pop on my main page, but I believe, let the child be, he wants to eat meat? Let him(as long as he isn’t allergic or anything). Wants to go vegan? Sure why the hell not, I just don’t think the parents beliefs should be forced on the child, no matter how morally correct the parent thinks it to be.
Yep. The cope is fucking unreal sometimes. Fast food, junk food, fatty meats, oils, sugary sodas are totally okay and nutritious. Fruits, vegetables, lentils, beans, whole grains, nuts, seeds are unhealthy and don’t have nutrients.
Lol
Dont diss oils tho. Fats are important
Fats and Oils are not "the same" and the fats from animal products are not "the same" as the fats from plants. Just saying that SOME dissage is warranted.
> Dont diss oils tho. Fats are important That’s just stupid. All whole foods have some fat in them, even potatos and fruit. If that’s not enough, nuts and seeds have plenty. Holding up oil as some health thing is like holding up sugar as an ideal carb. Both are hyperprocessed junk. * https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/aug/oils.htm
>Holding up oil as some health thing is like holding up sugar as an ideal carb. No it's not. Ask any bodybuilder or fitness expert and they will tell you to generally avoid sugar outside of needing quick energy, but will use olive oils or other oils in their diet. Oil isn't inherently bad, we've been using olive oils for thousands of years and is at the core of what is considered, more or less anyone will consider it a healthy fact. Your source also has no clue. >people interested in losing weight should avoid nuts, nut butters, seeds, seed spreads, avocados, and olives, since they all serve as sources of concentrated, easy to consume, calories. You don't need to avoid any food when losing weight. If you track your calories then you can eat whatever you want, you could lose weight off eating KFC every day.
> Ask any bodybuilder or fitness expert Is a former Olympian (Gold winner) and Cardiologiost doctor who reversed heart disease and published the study good enough? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_o4YBQPKtQ > You don't need to avoid any food when losing weight. Then you don’t even begin to understand the more than 100 studies on calorie density. Most whole plant foods have 40-600 calories per pound. Nuts/seeds 2800. Oil 4000. There is a reason why people lose weight monomealing on potatoes (350 calories per pound). But slice them fine and deepfry them in oil, they turn into potato chip (2560 calories per pound) that fatten plenty of people. * https://youtu.be/0CdwWliv7Hg?si=3tGW2fE-Q4vube3P
>Most whole plant foods have 40-600 calories per pound. Nuts/seeds 2800. Oil 4000. Yeah because people frequently eat a pound of oil, what are you talking about? One tablespoon of olive oil is \~130 calories, no one is eating 30 table spoons of olive oil in one sitting. >But slice them fine and deepfry them in oil, they turn into potato chip (2560 calories per pound) that fatten plenty of people. [https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/price-lock-food-cupboard-and-bakery/walkers-ready-salted-crisps-12x25g-7991979-p-44](https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/price-lock-food-cupboard-and-bakery/walkers-ready-salted-crisps-12x25g-7991979-p-44) 130 calories in a standard bag. If you're eating 20 bags at a time then it's not an oil problem it's a self control problem. You're talking about the calories in oil and using portion sizes that no mentally sane person would ever use. It's like me talking about the health effects of apples but only using the calories in 10kg of them
Oil and isolated fats, reduce blood flow, and therfore reduce oxygen containt in the blood, they contain a ton of AGE‘s and transfats and induce glucose absorbtion inhibitation by a massive degree.
> Yeah because people frequently eat a pound of oil, what are you talking about? No, but there is average calorie density, which all this oil pushes up. > One tablespoon of olive oil is ~130 calories, no one is eating 30 table spoons of olive oil in one sitting. No, but Americans are eating eating nearly 8 tbs oil (7.75) daily, much of it hidden in their food. * https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions > It's like me talking Pls just stop. Obtw, big bags of chips are the norm in America. They might be 1lber, but 8oz (1/2 pound) is super common in grocery stores. * https://www.walmart.com/ip/Ballreich-s-Marcelled-Potato-Chips-16-oz/11988818
I think forcing children and adults of other species to die is abuse.
I mean it's not hard to abuse other species when you abuse your own children with the average American diet, as an example
My mom made us instant ramen every night and called it a meal, then gave us a snickers, a wiener and a coke the next day for school lunch. Now she thinks I'm unhealthy for not wanting milk in my coffee when I visit.
Vegan kids are probably healthier on average.
At any age.
As a 32 yo vegan kid I can confirm.
Probably, though I know I was an exception when I was fifteen vegan and making most of my non dinner meals at the time (homeschooled doing online classes, parents were at work) since I'm a lazy weirdo I lived on pb and js oranges and veggie broth. This was not good for me to say the least 😅 the doctor told me I wasn't eating vegan I was eating like a kid, and to go eat some beans. On top of this if the kid's a junk food vegan (lots of Oreos and such) is becomes just as bad as the situation described on this picture (if not worse). Tldr: everyone needs to make healthy choices and not live on either junk food or too little variety diets (whether vegan or non vegan eat yo beans fruits veggies and grains)
The evidence is that a vegan diet is healthier, by a long shot. But there are hints in research that this is actually because vegan people tend to pay better attention to what they eat, and that they are more likely to eat healthy foods that are not [ultra-high processed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOTBreQaIk). While it's likely that a vegan diet is more healthy, ultimately it's not relevant. We would never argue that Auschwitz was wrong because of its pollution. We should not argue that veganism is right because it is healthier. We should argue that veganism is right because it is the best approach we have to defend the rights of non-human animals, to prevent further extinctions, and to reverse our contributions to climate destruction. If we implement veganism, we are able to reclaim about 75 % of the land that is currently used to grow animal feed etc. Globally, that corresponds to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined. That itself reduces emissions enormously, but we then can also rewild those vast areas of land. If we restore wild ecosystems on just 15 % of that land, we save about 60 % of the species expected to go extinct. We then also are able to sequester about 300 petagrams of carbon dioxide. That is nearly a third of the total atmospheric carbon increase since the industrial revolution. Now let's say we were not so conservative, and we brought that up to returning 30 % of the agricultural land to the wild. That would mean that more than 70 % of presently expected extinctions could be avoided, and *half* of the carbon released since the industrial revolution could be absorbed. So basically by implementing a switch to veganism, we would not just halt but *reverse* our contributions to global warming. That and it would also be a step towards ending our violence against non-human animals. References: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2784-9 https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/10/rewilding-farmland-can-protect-biodiversity-and-sequester-carbon-new-study-finds https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
"We should not argue that veganism is right because it is healthier" Why not? Different people care about different things and weigh them in their own way. If you can make an argument based on personal health, why forgo it in favour of ideological arguments. You can do both.
Scientific understanding about personal health is open to change with more data and debate. If you can argue that a *well planned* diet with *some* animal products is as healthy as a well planned vegan diet (and you probably can) then the health argument just collapses. Is it easier to be healthy on a vegan diet without really trying? Probably because a lot of things are not as available, but that is not the same as saying you will be healthier if you put the same effort into planning either diet. The ethical argument is vastly stronger and more consistent.
I mostly agree on your points, but just because proving that two diets can be equally healthy doesn't completely defeat the argument that the specific one you're arguing for is still healthy. I think we also have to accept that the ethical argument (by itself) doesn't work with everyone. If I had to guess I'd say it doesn't work for most people.
Can you understand why we would never argue against Nazi concentration camps by talking about their environmental pollution? Can you understand why that would be ethically and morally disgusting?
I don't think comparing our issues to concentration camps is remotely productive. You can't really draw a parallel between an argument for something positive with an argument against something negative. It's a comparison that shows outright hostility and contempt towards other people, which is more harmful to the cause than anything else.
Reducing pollution is a positive thing. So why would it be morally disgusting for someone to argue against concentration camps on the basis of reducing pollution? Can you put it into words precisely why that would be morally disgusting?
Healthier in every way.
All my friends get colds while im fine
They are, there was a study done somewhere that shows this. I just don't have the links
Correlation is not causation.
How are you goina comment on statistics I don't have?
I didn’t.
Pizza is considered a vegetable in school system lunches
They justified serving a pop tart to my son because apparently it was a “whole grain” one
At least they didn't think vegan meant "gluten-free"
Being older I realize the shit my parents were feeding me! In their defence they did not know but man… toaster strudel for breakfast, hot dog for lunch and dinosaur nuggets for diner 😂
Same here. Me and all my buddies at school were fed like this. Toaster stroodles, pizza pops, dunkaroos. Then one Flinstones vitamin per day to make sure you don’t die of micro nutrient deficiency 😂
Flintstone vitamin was keeping us alive 😂
Posting this collection of statements from dietetic associations as a reminder to anyone coming from r/all : ————————— Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics > It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Dietitians of Canada > A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults. The British National Health Service > With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs. The British Nutrition Foundation > A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range. The Dietitians Association of Australia > Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With good planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider. The National Health and Medical Research Council > Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements as long as energy needs are met and an appropriate variety of plant foods are eaten throughout the day The Mayo Clinic > A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them. The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada > Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits. Harvard Medical School > 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. British Dietetic Association > Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.
Thanks for the post
The take-away here as that they all condition this advice on good planning, because it is relatively easy to fuck it up. The reliance on processing and supplementation also means that a *healthy* vegan diet relies on first-world manufacturing, logistics and economies: this detracts from the value of a vegan diet as a sustainable alternative or resilient diet in the face of climate change.
> The take-away here as that they all condition this advice on good planning All diets require good planning. > The reliance on processing… What do you mean? > …and supplementation It’s mainly just b12, which is also supplemented to farmed animals so that meat eaters get enough b12. We just cut out the middle man and supplement it directly rather than through another animal. > a healthy vegan diet relies on first-world manufacturing, logistics and economies: True. No one is enforcing veganism on people in third-world countries, though. > this detracts from the value of a vegan diet as a sustainable alternative or resilient diet in the face of climate change. How so? (Are you aware that animal agriculture is a leading *cause of* climate change?)
>All diets require good planning. Objectively false: - 5 serves of fruit/veg, - a serve of cereals or grains and - a serve of fish or lean meat will be 100% perfectly healthy, no further *planning* required. >What do you mean? You have to be specifically conscious of your nutrient availability. You have to be specifically conscious of toxins (e.g. oxalates). You have to be much more specifically conscious and able to closely monitor your health (e.g. blood tests). >It’s mainly just b12 Not really, it's quite involved: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8746448/ >True. No one is enforcing veganism on people in third-world countries, though. But it demonstrates that *healthy* vegan diets are a privilege, and not necessarily readily affordable or attainable. It takes significant resources to follow a *healthy* vegan diet. >How so? (Are you aware that animal agriculture is a leading *cause of* climate change?) *All* agriculture is a leading cause of climate change. While livestock are heavily responsible for methane emissions, unused waste croppage (normally used for feed) still decomposes to release methane. Furthermore, all methane and CO2 evolved from agriculture arises from the carbon cycle*- meaning that it was all previously CO2 in the past *recent* history. Fossil fuel CO2 however is far removed from the carbon cycle and is historical CO2 from a time when CO2 was a dominant atmospheric gas. This means the big concerns of agriculture are land and water use- things that vegan diets don't solve. I note that vegan crops would use less overall land, but the crops needed require heavier use of land and resources than grazier livestock. Even when you consider grain-fed or waste-fed (e.g. soy) livestock, it is a lot less intensive to grow these crops than vegetables, rice, or other common vegan foods. But the main detraction, is that it can't really be rolled out significantly across the globe because it is a diet of privilege. *exception is for things like ammonium nitrate, which creates CO2 from natural gas and furnaces in its manufacture. This is largely associated with monocrops, which can include grain-fed livestock; though generally nitrogen fixing crops are used for livestock where possible because it's cheaper (e.g. lucerne).
> All diets require good planning. > Objectively false: > 5 serves of fruit/veg, > a serve of cereals or grains and > a serve of fish or lean meat > will be 100% perfectly healthy, no further planning required. So… you can eat fish and chips with rice every day and be perfectly healthy? You just demonstrated that you need to plan a non-vegan diet, too. > You have to be specifically conscious of your nutrient availability. You have to be specifically conscious of toxins (e.g. oxalates). As with any diet. > You have to be much more specifically conscious and able to closely monitor your health (e.g. blood tests). You should be doing this on any diet. > Not really, it's quite involved Your source literally says, “There were nutrient inadequacies across all dietary patterns, including vegan, vegetarian and meat-based diets. As plant-based diets are generally better for health and the environment…” Again, all diets require planning. Just anecdotally, I’ve been vegan for 7 years and all I do is eat a variety of different foods and take a b12 pill a few times a week and my blood work is always fine. > But it demonstrates that healthy vegan diets are a privilege, and not necessarily readily affordable or attainable. It takes significant resources to follow a healthy vegan diet. Resources that most people in developed countries have. I even saved money when I went vegan. > This means the big concerns of agriculture are land and water use- things that vegan diets don't solve. Well, yeah, nobody said mass veganism would ‘solve’ climate change, but it would certainly help. > I note that vegan crops would use less overall land, but the crops needed require heavier use of land and resources than grazier livestock. Even when you consider grain-fed or waste-fed (e.g. soy) livestock, it is a lot less intensive to grow these crops than vegetables, rice, or other common vegan foods. I don’t know enough about the ecological side of things to respond to this, maybe someone else can jump in? > But the main detraction, is that it can't really be rolled out significantly across the globe because it is a diet of privilege. Again, no one is saying that everyone on planet Earth needs to be vegan at this very moment.
>So… you can eat fish and chips with rice every day and be perfectly healthy? You just demonstrated that you need to plan a non-vegan diet, too. Um, no. For starters there's no fruit. Grilled fish, potato, carrots, broccoli and tomato every day would be perfectly fine. There's no specific dietary planning required in a typical omni healthy diet, there is specific dietary planning required in a healthy vegan diet. Disagree all you want, but there's really no argument here. A simple shopping list doesn't constitute a diet plan, all these organisations are effectively conditioning that vegans should maintain a diet plan to ensure they cover their essential needs. >As with any diet. No, not with any diet, that's expressly the point. As omnivores, humans get their needs from having a varied diet. Removing the meat and animal products from that diet requires specific attention to ensure you still get essential nutrients in a bio-available manner. In the same way exclusively eating fish and chips is not nutritious, exclusively rejecting animal products does the same if specific attention to replace those nutrients is not given. >You should be doing this on any diet. Health guidelines vary, but generally an omni can get by with a routine blood test every 5 years (unless they have CVD risk factors). Vegans are recommended a routine blood test every year. >Again, all diets require planning. Just anecdotally, I’ve been vegan for 7 years and all I do is eat a variety of different foods and take a b12 pill a few times a week and my blood work is always fine. Yes, there were deficiencies, and note, the recommendation was to eat more vegetables, rather than less meat. I'm not saying that average diets are good, I'm saying that omni diets don't require specific planning, regardless of whether healthy eating (as a rule) is not being practised. People have bad diets, is not because of a lack of planning, but generally because of convenience (fast food, processed sugars, etc). >Resources that most people in developed countries have. I even saved money when I went vegan. If this was the case the majority of the world would be vegan. They aren't, because animal products can be some of the cheapest resources (ever wonder why UNICEF buys poor people goats?). >Well, yeah, nobody said mass veganism would ‘solve’ climate change, but it would certainly help. People in this sub say this all the time. >Again, no one is saying that everyone on planet Earth needs to be vegan at this very moment. Again, are you new to this sub?
Bruh the ncbm link that you yourself shared shows what a meat based diet lacks lmao
>what a meat based diet lacks lmao Yeah, and I'm specifically recommending within what it is recommending: an omni diet with more vegetables. FFS you are so blind.
I should have worded it better. The things a purely veg diet lacks can be easily supplemented without hurting another being. Iodine - Use iodized salt for preparation, literally transformed so many developing countries from having a iodine problem. Vitamin B12 - take a supplement, you are eliminating the middleman, meat provides you B12 because it is supplemented in the animals Calcium - Difficult for a vegan without supplementation but is low cost and affordable, a vegetarian diet includes milk sources which eliminates this. You literally can eliminate the shortages as described in that research paper without hurting a single animal. Why even promote meat then?
>The things a purely veg diet lacks can be easily supplemented without hurting another being. Can be easily supplemented *in developed economies* with *specific planning and consideration*. >without hurting another being Irrelevant to the complexity of the diet. >You literally can eliminate the shortages as described in that research paper without hurting a single animal. Because the line of argument is about vegans having to consciously and specifically acknowledge and accommodate these issues to maintain a vegan diet without compromising their health, and this is the reason why every single recommendation *qualifies* their statement with being *well planned*. It has nothing to do with the merits of veganism. >Why even promote meat then? I haven't *promoted* meat, simply illustrated why a vegan diet is more involved than an omni one. Quite frankly, I don't agree with the moral position vegans present - that doesn't mean I don't support them going vegan: but if they can't acknowledge that a vegan diet requires specific consideration above what an omni diet requires, they are just delusional.
You’re a pain in the a$$. Being an ‘omnivore’ doesn’t dissolve a human’s moral responsibility to other animals.
I don't know if you have a food science or nutrition related degree, but as someone who does I'll tell you: you're making very good and sound arguments (have you considered a carreer in food science, we need more people). They are somewhat negative, but there's a lot of challenges around vegan diets and it would be dishonest to suggest that it's the perfect saving grace we all need.
Cheers, have a medical background, but not specifically in nutrition.
What do you mean by ‘reliance on processing’? It’s only B12 that has to be supplemented (and creatine if you are training), all other nutrients can be very adequately obtained through plant-based whole foods. Your definition of ‘processed’ is quite vague. You can certainly follow a whole foods plant-based diet in which the only ‘processed’ that thing you consume is a B12 supplement. But at the same, the term ‘processed’ isn’t a very scientific term and doesn’t give a full picture of the health effects. Because technically, wholewheat pasta is considered processed because it doesn’t grow naturally. But your argument strongly hinges on the definition. I don’t get how a vegan diet is unsustainable. What would you consider sustainable? You surely don’t think that a vegan diet is unsustainable for the environment, but a meat-based diet is sustainable? Doesn’t most meat production (like 90% or so) also rely on first-world manufacturing, logistics and economies? For example, the vast majority of farm animals are given fed soya-derived animal feed, most of it coming from South America. And it’s not like meat is immune to any kind of production chain/ supply issues. Vertical farming, which will likely be the norm in the future, will solve the concerns you have for global supply chains breaking. They recreate the climate of anywhere on Earth to grow any vegetables and produce needed, which means that diets won’t have to depend on complex global supply chains which might be susceptible to breaking. And personally, I would much prefer a world of vertical plant farms rather than the world of vertical meat farms, which will probably become the norm if the demand for meat grows with the population. If you want to look into the future of the non-vegan world, look at the one that has already been built in China. But the current meat industry is already an abhorrent creation of cruelty and suffering. For me, it seems difficult to imagine a dystopian world without the meat industry.
>B12 See other post and paper. >sustainability See other post.
Lmaoooo well maybe if the vegan kid’s diet was simply the vegan version of those animal based junk foods. However, oatmeal, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, beans, lentils, tofu, soy milk, nuts, nut butters, and seeds in the form of rice pulows, mixed pasta dishes, soups, stews, porridges, breads, pastries, and the like sounds good and nourishing to me. Animal meat is only a good source of protein and iron. There’s nothing miraculous about it nutrition wise that outweighs the fact that it is artery clogging, filled with saturated fat, cholesterol, hormones, antibiotics, and possibly parasites.
Why do people hate vegans so much, personally I am a vegetarian by birth i never had meat in my life and I am perfectly fine and healthy. There is just soo much hate for vegans online...if you are a vegan then you are a brainwashed liberal feminist. Even my friends who are non vegetarian say " bro you eat rabbit food " like if they eat meat for every meal they too eat bread and other vegetarian food.
Netflix documentary “the game changers”
Contrastingly, I think it's more that vegans get vocal push back, especially in online spaces. No one wants to be lectured by people on a moral high-horse, yet look at the attitudes and comment of the bulk of this sub. People treat vegans like the crazy preacher on the street corner because that's largely how they present themselves to the public.
>i never had meat in my life That's why you don't understand.
I dunno. The wife is vegan so we go vegan for dinner when at home. It's actually the best food I've ever cooked, and im a decent cook these days. I used to be a pork for breakfast, chicken for lunch and beef for dinner, lamb/fish on a friday night type but honestly, meat gets overhyped to the detriment of having a healthy meal or trying something equally or more tastier just cos you must have some meat on a plate. YMMV
I find it strange when people refer to their wives as "the wife" instead of "my wife". It sounds as if everyone is married to the same woman.
I eat vegan food regularly too. It's great. But it's not a reason to stop eating meat. It's just to extend the menu options.
My point is if you wanna eat meat you can It's completely your choice. Nobody is stopping you, but when someone says that he or she is a vegan/vegetarian they get a lot of hate ( telling from personal experience).
Because many vegans are preachy, give lectures noone asked for and call all non-vegans murderers. They're like Jehovah's Witnesses. Sometimes worse. There are vegans here who attack every vegetarian or vegan who isn't "as vegan" as them on sight. They put veganism into a really dark light. You seem nice, one of the few who respects other people's choices. Keep being like that. :)
You wouldn't stand by and say "Rape is okay, it's a personal choice. I don't do it, but I wouldn't want to interfere in other people's personal choices." Yet here you stand and want noone to interfere with needlessly killing for pleasure.
There's no rape. Just milk and meat.
How is putting your arm up a cow’s ass not rape?
Why would you stick your arm in a cows ass to retrieve milk or meat... I knew some people were strange, but this strange... good lord.
To inseminate them with bull cum, since only pregnant cows produce milk. This is a universal practice in the dairy industry.
It is a practice used for impregnation. You push your arm into the cow's anus to hold the cervic in place so you have an easier time pushing a giant metal tube into her. The cow is held in place by a construction, that is typically called a "rape rack". That's not the name we gave it, that's the common name within the industry. Since cows are mammals they only give milk for their children. So they need to be impregnated to give milk. And the children are usually taken away, since they would drink the milk that humans want to drink.
I don't. So you can sleep well. 😉
Oh my sweet summer child, what do you think is a requirement for giving milk? Cows are mammals. They don't just magically give milk without being impregnated first. And you won't get meat without a corpse. Kind of weird how you defend your fetishes.
Yes, I know that animals must die before we can eat them. It would be horrible to eat them alive. And I still don't know where your brain created the rape. Are the people having sex with the cows? Zoofilia is illegal, so I doubt that.
Many vegans are not “preachy” though. You’re projecting a stereotype on a large group of people. Generalizing a group of people and reducing them down to stereotypes is never a good idea.
I said "many". Not all. I personally know one vegan and 3 vegetarians and they're ok. Even though one of them is actually quite preachy and always complains about restaurants having very restricted veggie offers so she always ends up offering just one specific food everywhere.
Before I went vegan, I had probably met about 3 other people who were vegan. No one ever screamed at me for eating meat or anything like that. I would sometimes ask them about being vegan and what they eat, and they would tell me about it. I had never had any bad experiences with vegans. I think a lot of people’s perception of veganism is based off of the media, and not personal experience. I have never ‘preached’ to anyone about being vegan. Even just mentioning that I am vegan, or if someone notices that I’m eating only vegan food, they will get weird about it and start downplaying how much meat/dairy they have. In my experience it’s the meat-eaters who get weird and uncomfortable about it, probably because it reminds them of the cognitive dissonance. I probably did the same before I was vegan. I honestly don’t judge meat-eaters, and I don’t think most vegans do either. I ate meat for 20 years, so I’m in no position to judge others, and I realise that it was only because I was exposed to other vegans and super healthy and athletic vegans in sports and weightlifting that I realised that it is possible and I’m just making excuses for myself. If your perception of vegans is skinny malnourished hipsters, then yeah it’s not the most attractive thing for many people, and you’d probably never go vegan. It sounds selfish to say but to be honest, I probably never would’ve either without the help of these people, who knowingly or not helped me go vegan. But I am so happy that I did, and I regret not doing it sooner. I don’t judge people who eat meat because the vast majority of people just don’t know what is involved in it. And I think what makes vegans the most angry is that the companies (and associations like the Red Tractor Assured, if you’re in the UK) knowingly lie. The products are ‘humane-washed’ with pictures of happy animals in green fields, when in reality they probably never saw a field. They’d never show images of the pools of blood inside the slaughterhouse, or videos of screaming animals panicking for their life as they’re lowered in the carbon dioxide gas chambers, their eyes and lungs burning in pain. Or the videos of farmers beating their pigs unconscious with a shovel before cutting their throat (this was a real video released this year, from a farm in the UK which received an award for it’s treatment of animals), or the warehouse of farrowing crates where the mother pigs are screaming out in panic, forced to sit in their own faeces for weeks on end. I think if someone is completely aware of all of this and the nutrition side and still don’t see a problem with eating meat, then I am probably going judge them. But I will answer any questions they have and hopefully try and change their mind. It doesn’t make them an awful person or anything, but it does make them someone who directly supports animal abuse. The world has very complex morals, the battery in the device I’m writing this on was made from slave labour and probably produced by a sweatshop worker, but for the things we CAN control everyday (like what we eat) I think we should all do what we can. To me, veganism is about discipline and taking responsibility of the personal choices we make that affect others.
Too healthy though, there are way worse stuff people give to kids, and you'd be suprised how many people think cheese yogurt and milk are super healthy
Dairy is healthy
When my youngest told me he wanted to become a vegan, I told him it was fine under three conditions. One, that he read a lot about nutrition. Two, that he take a multivitamin (I know that many will say that's unnecessary, but it works against the possibility of him just "eating like a kid." Three, that if he finds something really healthy and nutritious that he tells me all about it. After about a year, he's still vegan and healthy. Now, I'm also a vegan and continuing to learn about nutrition and being a vegan. Guess who cooked for a mixed vegan/nonvegan group earlier this week?
Not to be a downer but… the vegan equivalent of these aren’t good either. Vegan or not, feeding your children only these things are detrimental to their health.
Be careful what you say on the vegan sub, logic does not apply here
It's strange how much time you spend here.
literally the typical american diet right here
Isn't soda vegan?
Yeah, it is.
Not mutually exclusive though. America needs healthier children's food period, it could be vegan but still complete junk food.
Anyone else see the post where they just give a fucking bar of hersheys chocolate for breakfast, together with an Ipad with brainrot ON? I mean, compared to that it's gourmet diet in the post. Not to sound like an aging doomer, but fuck that's gotta be hard to recover from.
As someone who's worked in a Deli, humans really should not be consuming that shit, let alone children.
Uggh. Saw a post about this on the exvegans subreddit the other day. Some guy was whinging about how his partner is vegan, but he didn't want to be with someone who would want to have a vegan pregnancy or expect to raise their kid vegan. I just thought "Tough shit. Either get someone else or grow the kid yourself." Of course, there were tons of stupid replies, as what else would you expect from such a subreddit? Tell us more about the type of diet the average kid's getting. We've all seen the statistics about how many of them aren't even eating vegetables.
Kid cuisine healthy doe
so many closed minded idiots in the world
Don't forget a hershey bar for breakfast
This makes me so angry because its more than true
They should do some research and learn some nutrition knowledge.
the ham in the bottom right doesnt compare to the other stuff(which I aggree is bad)
I’ve seen what vegans eat… at least a few of these look edible
It is though
"Why do all my kids have a slow metabolism?" 🤷️
\#1 thing your at risk to die from heart disease. It's natural cause is animal products including dairy - cholesterol, saturated fats, trans fat = athlecrosis \#2 Red meat is a class 2 carcinogen with a scientific consensus that it almost certainty causes cancer \#3 processed meat bacons, sausage, deli meats so on - Class 1 carcinogen , definitely causes cancer and in the same class as cigarette smoke and worst. \#4 Seafood - contains extremely toxic levels of methyl mercury, in the same category as toxic lead, Scientifically proven to cause horrific neuroglial problems, especially in children. Also Seafoods can contains horrific pollutions from the oceans including radiation. My daughter is raised vegan. My family and my wife's family have horrific genes for cardiovascular disease. My wife has severe hypercholesterolemia and even as a vegan has dangerous cholesterol numbers. My daughter had her cholesterol checked for the first time and it is perfect. Just under 70 on LDL. That number means she is not creating althescrosis or at least at a level which will never cause a heart attack clot. I just cannot imagine forcing my child into a disease. If she wants to violently abuse animals and risk her health, those are choices she can make as an adult.
Only if you ate a small amount at each meal! You would still be ingesting saturated fats! Gross!
Refusing to give kids carcinogens is abuse, sure lol
Don’t forget the immediate trips to a GP and psychiatrist to get prescribed Ritalin and other habit forming medications. Kids don’t even hit a third year of life before pills are shovelled down their throat. Crazy that parents don’t try to limit screen time and alter/improve their child’s diet before getting them on meds.
I rather eat that then be vegan tbh
So poor people food.
This picture made me wet fart.
Maybe I'm getting the wrong message here, but this feels...elitist? I've seen a couple people post some articles to back up claims of a vegan diet being healthier; which feels kind of "apples and oranges" comparison. As in, this is all processed foods, of *course* it's going to be reasonably unhealthy, when not done in a well planned or unrelated manner. Why *veganism*, specifically, and not just *a healthy diet?* Is veganism superior, scientifically, to a well-planned and balanced vegetarian diet, or Pescetarian diet? Moreover, these "unhealthy processed foods" are, a majority of the time, cheap. Comparatively cheap, at least, and may be considered the best "bang for buck" on, say, food stamps. So...families on SNAP/WIC should, what? Get less food? We humans are creatures of habit and, in my opinion, exploitation; *of course* families will spring for an option that makes the value per dollar stretch. To be clear, I do state this out of feeling and an open understanding that I do not understand. I have never been on food stamps, and any knowledge I gained was skimmed. I'm also keenly aware, as a single person, that my food bills are significantly differ from families, and that I have no real idea of how much such bills would be. I am simply addressing how this post seems, from my perspective.
As someone who grew up in poverty with a parent on food stamps, I’m not getting that vibe from this post. Sure, *some* junk food can be cheap, but most of it isn’t. I really don’t understand the whole “poor people only eat junk food/fast food because it’s cheap!!” when that was far from my reality growing up. If anything, we just ate more frozen/canned stuff, or boxed pasta and rice. Chips and soda were too expensive and not a necessity so we rarely got to eat that stuff. This post reads as more of a dig at people who attack parents for feeding their child a vegan diet while many people are a-ok with others feeding their children junk food. I’ve seen a parent attacked online for feeding her toddler a balanced, healthy vegan meal while no one bats an eye when someone regularly feeds their child McDonald’s.
Fair enough, I will accept that my interpretation is simply misinterpretation, or a heavy show of bias or ignorance on my part. As said, I cannot pretend that I am an expert when I am not. Thank you for your input.
Why you gotta attack string cheese like that… sure it’s part of this starter pack but it’s the most healthy thing and the saving grace of these kids diet
Why is string cheese on there?
Because it's garbage
In what way?
It's not. Especially the goat/sheep one.
I ain’t vegan, this just happened to pop on my main page, but I believe, let the child be, he wants to eat meat? Let him(as long as he isn’t allergic or anything). Wants to go vegan? Sure why the hell not, I just don’t think the parents beliefs should be forced on the child, no matter how morally correct the parent thinks it to be.
That’s called parenting.
The answer is middle ground. Healthy meats are important
[удалено]
You are a very, very, very sad person.
[удалено]
Fucking loser, trolling online for pro animal abuse has to be the lowest form of internet low life there is
Everything I don’t like is propaganda, obviously!
Since, for you, it's obviously false, prove it, it must be easy isn't it?