Vegetarians more likely to have mental issues...

[Alcon]

Hmm, but less likely to have heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, etc.

Actually, eating meat is healthier than being vegetarian.  It's just that people who are vegetarian are healthier than the average because they're conscientious about their diet in the first place.  They would be even healthier if they added meat to their diet.  Not to say, it's unhealthy to be vegetarian, but it's not the optimal choice for nutrition, all other factors aside.

You might be right, but on what basis do you say this?

[bedstuy]

Hmm, but less likely to have heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, etc.

Actually, eating meat is healthier than being vegetarian.  It's just that people who are vegetarian are healthier than the average because they're conscientious about their diet in the first place.  They would be even healthier if they added meat to their diet.  Not to say, it's unhealthy to be vegetarian, but it's not the optimal choice for nutrition, all other factors aside.

You might be right, but on what basis do you say this?

Protein, nutrients that are primarily available from meat and the fact that humans are a species that evolved to eat meat.  Do you disagree with my point?

[Alcon]

Hmm, but less likely to have heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, etc.

Actually, eating meat is healthier than being vegetarian.  It's just that people who are vegetarian are healthier than the average because they're conscientious about their diet in the first place.  They would be even healthier if they added meat to their diet.  Not to say, it's unhealthy to be vegetarian, but it's not the optimal choice for nutrition, all other factors aside.

You might be right, but on what basis do you say this?

Protein, nutrients that are primarily available from meat and the fact that humans are a species that evolved to eat meat.  Do you disagree with my point?

As far as I can tell, yes, because you're arguing "all else being equal" and then not setting all else to be equal.  It's true that vegetarians are more likely to underconsume macronutrients...but how is that different than saying that meat-eaters are more likely to overconsume calories?

I can't really address the claim that it's healthier to eat meat because "humans evolved to" because that doesn't really mean much of anything.  If you're alluding to a mechanism, you'll have to be more specific.  Obviously our bodies aren't aware of some kind of biological intent or whatever.

[bedstuy]

Sure, I'm aware that's not an air-tight argument.  The idea that natural = healthy is way overplayed.  And, for example of you could bio-engineer plants that had all the some nutrients as meat, that would change the game.  But, it is true that our body is geared towards eating meat and there were not vegetarians in prehistoric times.  That's a hint, not an airtight argument.

My point was that there's a difference between a population study of group A vs. group B, and determining what the optimal diet is. 

To the best of my knowledge, the optimal diet is high in protein, high in vegetables, high in fiber and provides all the nutrients your body needs.  You can get by without eating lots of vegetables, without eating meat, by taking special vitamins and having blood tests to check your iron levels twice a year, you can get by with drinking a little too much, etc.  But, if we're saying "the healthiest possible diet," it's going to include some meat and fish probably. 

There's a separate discussion of whether you should value having the healthiest possible diet more than your ethical or environmental concerns in re eating meat.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Vegetarians who also eat dairy and eggs should have no problem getting all of the necessary nutrients.  Vegetarians who eat dairy also shouldn't have a problem with the addition of a B12 supplement.

Vegans obviously have more issues getting all the right nutrients but probably not any more than your average American because they are more mindful of what they are eating, in general.  B12 is a big one... but that can be sourced from non-animal products now.  

The only thing is ensuring you get enough omega-3 and saturated fats.  Avocado and coconut are two good sources of saturated fats and now they make good omega-3 supplements from algae and seaweed oils that actually absorb well in your system.

It's easier than ever to be a vegan or vegetarian.

That said, we learn more and more about how nutrients break down, how complex they are, and how they interact with our body.  It's kinda like the "three sisters" of Native American lore... they didn't know why... but they knew planting corn, squash, and beans together was beneficial to all three. 

In reality the beans provided nitrogen to the soil that the corn needed... the corn provided a stalk for the beans to climb... and the squash grew between the corn keeping weeds and pests away.

We may find that eating meat and dairy are beneficial in ways we don't yet understand.

In the end, the arguing is just pointless.  Nobody should be forcing anyone to eat a certain way.  That is up to you.

[DemPGH]

 

To the best of my knowledge, the optimal diet is high in protein, high in vegetables, high in fiber and provides all the nutrients your body needs.  

I think that's pretty accurate, and the benefits of grains/fiber cannot be underestimated.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/nutrition_&_eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php

I think that it's certainly possible for a person who is strictly vegetarian to have some vitamin or nutrient deficiencies, which they can quite easily make up for by use of supplements or items that are fortified with what is needed, like calcium in soy/almond/cashew milk. At the end of it, I think a vegetarian diet is going to be way healthier than a high meat, high fried-food diet. But sure, moderation would not necessarily be unhealthy. I eat fish, for e.g., and really like it, especially salmon. But I've cut out all red meat and dairy, and am quite honestly better off.

One of the things that's underplayed, because Americans consume it in gargantuan quantities, is soda. Soda is terrible, and will contribute to a lot of the problems associated with a meaty diet. Like, your body literally does all kinds of things as a reaction to soda, and there are risks that go on and on (sugar, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and even osteoporosis). It's amazing how bad it really is. It's just sugar, syrup, and seltzer water, and people make it their go-to drink. Ugh. People also salt the hell out of stuff, and the risks to that are well documented (blood pressure, namely).

Also, red (as opposed to black) pepper has many health benefits, so yeah, there are ways to offset the negative side of meat in one's diet.

[Ban my account ffs!]

 

To the best of my knowledge, the optimal diet is high in protein, high in vegetables, high in fiber and provides all the nutrients your body needs.   

I think that's pretty accurate, and the benefits of grains/fiber cannot be underestimated.

http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/nutrition_&_eating_concerns/being_a_vegetarian.php

I think that it's certainly possible for a person who is strictly vegetarian to have some vitamin or nutrient deficiencies, which they can quite easily make up for by use of supplements or items that are fortified with what is needed, like calcium in soy/almond/cashew milk. At the end of it, I think a vegetarian diet is going to be way healthier than a high meat, high fried-food diet. But sure, moderation would not necessarily be unhealthy. I eat fish, for e.g., and really like it, especially salmon. But I've cut out all red meat and dairy, and am quite honestly better off.

One of the things that's underplayed, because Americans consume it in gargantuan quantities, is soda. Soda is terrible, and will contribute to a lot of the problems associated with a meaty diet. Like, your body literally does all kinds of things as a reaction to soda, and there are risks that go on and on (sugar, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and even osteoporosis). It's amazing how bad it really is. It's just sugar, syrup, and seltzer water, and people make it their go-to drink. Ugh. People also salt the hell out of stuff, and the risks to that are well documented (blood pressure, namely).

Also, red (as opposed to black) pepper has many health benefits, so yeah, there are ways to offset the negative side of meat in one's diet.

I think bedstuy was pointing out that a diet low in grains is best.  High in protein and fibrous vegetables.  Don't forget fat, too.  Fat is best at regulating appetite.  Carbs just trigger you to eat more.

[DemPGH]

^ Oh, well I would disagree with that - oatmeal and wheat bread have loads of benefits, and you just quit when you start getting full. IDK, I don't like to feel full.

[Alcon]

Sure, I'm aware that's not an air-tight argument.  The idea that natural = healthy is way overplayed.  And, for example of you could bio-engineer plants that had all the some nutrients as meat, that would change the game.  But, it is true that our body is geared towards eating meat and there were not vegetarians in prehistoric times.  That's a hint, not an airtight argument.

Sure, but I don't see the point of "hints" when we mostly understand how these factors work just fine.

My point was that there's a difference between a population study of group A vs. group B, and determining what the optimal diet is.  

OK, sure...but that's not "all factors aside."  You're controlling for the fact that vegetarians are on average more conscientious eaters and have lower calorie intake, but not controlling for the fact that vegetarians on average are more likely to have macronutrient deficiencies.  That seems totally arbitrary.  Either we're adjusting for nutritional competency or we're not.

To the best of my knowledge, the optimal diet is high in protein, high in vegetables, high in fiber and provides all the nutrients your body needs.  You can get by without eating lots of vegetables, without eating meat, by taking special vitamins and having blood tests to check your iron levels twice a year, you can get by with drinking a little too much, etc.  But, if we're saying "the healthiest possible diet," it's going to include some meat and fish probably.  

I'm not sure it makes much sense to say that there is a platonic ideal of "the healthiest possible diet."  There are effectively quotas we need to meet (basic macronutrients), and then whatever additional nutrition we need to achieve more optional ends -- energy, building muscle, etc.  After a certain point, almost every possible nutrient becomes redundant.  If you're arguing that it's easier as a non-vegetarian to make quotas, and get whatever extra you need for whatever needs you have, that's definitely true, although it's not particularly onerous either way.  But your argument was: "[a vegetarian] would be even healthier if they added meat to their diet...all other factors aside."  That's a very different claim, and I don't think it's true.

There's a separate discussion of whether you should value having the healthiest possible diet more than your ethical or environmental concerns in re eating meat.

You're phrasing it in a way that suggests that people weigh ethical issues against sacrificing "having the healthiest possible diet" -- and I don't think that actually represents the choice point for most people.  Outside of orthorexia-land, I don't think many people value having "the healthiest possible diet" as an absolute ideal.  Most people value having a healthy enough diet to achieve basic health (easy either way) plus whatever additional ends they want (potentially harder as a vegetarian).  

I think it's more accurate to say the discussion is how much you value convenience/lower effort in having a very healthy diet, versus ethical/environmental concerns.  I realize that sounds a little like I'm stacking the deck, but I think it's basically the reality of the choice.

[Alcon]

For me personally, I love meat and as such could never go without it for an extended period of time, health issues be damned.  Genesis 9:3 FTW.

Going to ask you the same question I asked Simfan: why do you care about the religious morality here, but not care about the secular ethical issues?  Do you even put the slightest effort into trying to minimize or avoid the suffering associated with your diet?  No disrespect, but it drives me a little crazy to see someone being morally self-satisfied and then categorically ignoring a moral concern.

[Ban my account ffs!]

For me personally, I love meat and as such could never go without it for an extended period of time, health issues be damned.  Genesis 9:3 FTW.

Going to ask you the same question I asked Simfan: why do you care about the religious morality here, but not care about the secular ethical issues?  Do you even put the slightest effort into trying to minimize or avoid the suffering associated with your diet?  No disrespect, but it drives me a little crazy to see someone being morally self-satisfied and then categorically ignoring a moral concern.

I know you didn't ask me... but I've begun switching over to more humane meat/eggs/dairy.  Eggs and dairy seem pretty easy... but meat is still pretty hard (and expensive). 

[Ebowed]

Protein

How many people do you know with protein deficiency, out of curiosity?

[bedstuy]

Sure, I'm aware that's not an air-tight argument.  The idea that natural = healthy is way overplayed.  And, for example of you could bio-engineer plants that had all the some nutrients as meat, that would change the game.  But, it is true that our body is geared towards eating meat and there were not vegetarians in prehistoric times.  That's a hint, not an airtight argument.

Sure, but I don't see the point of "hints" when we mostly understand how these factors work just fine.

My point was that there's a difference between a population study of group A vs. group B, and determining what the optimal diet is.  

OK, sure...but that's not "all factors aside."  You're controlling for the fact that vegetarians are on average more conscientious eaters and have lower calorie intake, but not controlling for the fact that vegetarians on average are more likely to have macronutrient deficiencies.  That seems totally arbitrary.  Either we're adjusting for nutritional competency or we're not.

To the best of my knowledge, the optimal diet is high in protein, high in vegetables, high in fiber and provides all the nutrients your body needs.  You can get by without eating lots of vegetables, without eating meat, by taking special vitamins and having blood tests to check your iron levels twice a year, you can get by with drinking a little too much, etc.  But, if we're saying "the healthiest possible diet," it's going to include some meat and fish probably.  

I'm not sure it makes much sense to say that there is a platonic ideal of "the healthiest possible diet."  There are effectively quotas we need to meet (basic macronutrients), and then whatever additional nutrition we need to achieve more optional ends -- energy, building muscle, etc.  After a certain point, almost every possible nutrient becomes redundant.  If you're arguing that it's easier as a non-vegetarian to make quotas, and get whatever extra you need for whatever needs you have, that's definitely true, although it's not particularly onerous either way.  But your argument was: "[a vegetarian] would be even healthier if they added meat to their diet...all other factors aside."  That's a very different claim, and I don't think it's true.

There's a separate discussion of whether you should value having the healthiest possible diet more than your ethical or environmental concerns in re eating meat.

You're phrasing it in a way that suggests that people weigh ethical issues against sacrificing "having the healthiest possible diet" -- and I don't think that actually represents the choice point for most people.  Outside of orthorexia-land, I don't think many people value having "the healthiest possible diet" as an absolute ideal.  Most people value having a healthy enough diet to achieve basic health (easy either way) plus whatever additional ends they want (potentially harder as a vegetarian).  

I think it's more accurate to say the discussion is how much you value convenience/lower effort in having a very healthy diet, versus ethical/environmental concerns.  I realize that sounds a little like I'm stacking the deck, but I think it's basically the reality of the choice.

You raise good points so I should clarify.  If you were giving people information on how to eat healthy, you would tell them to eat meat, from a health perspective.  If they wanted to be vegetarian, you wouldn't advise against it, you would just give them some information about how to get a healthy diet without meat. 

And, I think you're underrating convenience and satiety.  People need to have a convenient diet for their life-style and they need a diet that doesn't leave them hungry.  Protein and animal fat are things that, along with fiber, make you less hungry, compared to carbs.  I find for myself.  I try to eat meat for every meal because it's a healthy source of calories and I stay full longer. 

I also don't think you're stacking the deck there.  I truly value my convenience and happiness above the ethical concerns I have for animals.  I think anyone who eats meat has to basically agree on that if they're being intellectually honest.

Protein

How many people do you know with protein deficiency, out of curiosity?

I think many people who benefit from eating more protein and animal fat, instead simple carbohydrates and sweets. 

[Alcon]

"Secular ethical issues" just aren't really on my radar to be honest.   I just don't view animal lives as even close to as important as human lives.  If given a choice, sure, I'd probably by organic beef, I guess, but ethical considerations just aren't really a consideration when eating, as is the case with the vast majority of Americans, thankfully.

"Thankfully"?  Dude, wtf?  Even if you don't view animals lives as "even close to as important as human lives," you're actively happy that other people don't care about the unnecessary suffering caused by the way we do mass-production farming?

It makes me genuinely angry that you took time to brag about how religiously righteous you are, and yet you're apparently gratified that others are as actively disinterested in animal suffering as you are.  There is absolutely nothing in your religious beliefs, or the belief that human lives are superior to animal lives, that requires you to think like this.  You just have decided not to care about entities that, however inferior to us, are no less capable of experiencing fear or feeling unbearable pain.  You apparently think that your apathy toward suffering is not only acceptable, but you're even glad it's widespread.

"Thankfully"?  Seriously, what the hell.

[Ebowed]

Protein

How many people do you know with protein deficiency, out of curiosity?

I think many people who benefit from eating more protein and animal fat, instead simple carbohydrates and sweets.  

I asked you if you know anybody with protein deficiency.  It goes without saying that you can only get animal fat from eating animals, but your original implication was that vegetarians would have a hard time meeting their protein requirements.  Do you stand by that, or are you changing the qualifier to include animal fats?

[Ebowed]

"Secular ethical issues" just aren't really on my radar to be honest.   I just don't view animal lives as even close to as important as human lives.  If given a choice, sure, I'd probably by organic beef, I guess, but ethical considerations just aren't really a consideration when eating, as is the case with the vast majority of Americans, thankfully.

"Thankfully"?  Dude, wtf?  Even if you don't view animals lives as "even close to as important as human lives," you're actively happy that other people don't care about the unnecessary suffering caused by the way we do mass-production farming?

It makes me genuinely angry that you took time to brag about how religiously righteous you are, and yet you're apparently gratified that others are as actively disinterested in animal suffering as you are.  There is absolutely nothing in your religious beliefs, or the belief that human lives are superior to animal lives, that requires you to think like this.  You just have decided not to care about entities that, however inferior to us, are no less capable of experiencing fear or feeling unbearable pain.  You apparently think that your apathy toward suffering is not only acceptable, but you're even glad it's widespread.

"Thankfully"?  Seriously, what the hell.

To be fair, he is on record saying that AIDS is a suitable punishment for promiscuity and intravenous drug use, so talking about morality with him is pretty much futile.

[bedstuy]

Protein

How many people do you know with protein deficiency, out of curiosity?

I think many people who benefit from eating more protein and animal fat, instead simple carbohydrates and sweets.  

I asked you if you know anybody with protein deficiency.  It goes without saying that you can only get animal fat from eating animals, but your original implication was that vegetarians would have a hard time meeting their protein requirements.  Do you stand by that, or are you changing the qualifier to include animal fats?

I don't think the problem is any of these diets being severely unhealthy or people lacking basic nutrients.  Nobody is starving to death or getting rickets because they lack access to food in America.  And, a vegetarian diet is not unhealthy.  I never said that.

My point is that eating meat is a good thing in itself, purely from the selfish perspective of the person eating food.  Eating an omnivorous diet makes it easier to be healthy, satisfied, happy with what you eat and have energy/satiety in your daily life.  It's not a must have in any way, it's just a plus.  

[Alcon]

You raise good points so I should clarify.  If you were giving people information on how to eat healthy, you would tell them to eat meat, from a health perspective.  If they wanted to be vegetarian, you wouldn't advise against it, you would just give them some information about how to get a healthy diet without meat.

That's still a different claim than your original statement.  If you're arguing that it's better to tell people to eat meat, because it has better average health outcomes than eating vegetarian, maybe.  I'm not aware of evidence of this claim -- especially considering that obesity is a much bigger epidemiological problem it the U.S. than nutritional deficiency.  But even if it's true, that's still way different than the claim that meat-eating is better "all else being equal," because it's a claim that rests entirely on recognizing that all else is not equal.

And, I think you're underrating convenience and satiety.  People need to have a convenient diet for their life-style and they need a diet that doesn't leave them hungry.  Protein and animal fat are things that, along with fiber, make you less hungry, compared to carbs.  I find for myself.  I try to eat meat for every meal because it's a healthy source of calories and I stay full longer.

I also don't think you're stacking the deck there.  I truly value my convenience and happiness above the ethical concerns I have for animals.  I think anyone who eats meat has to basically agree on that if they're being intellectually honest.

In what sense am I "underrating convenience and satiety"?  I haven't said anything that passes judgment on what's a reasonable mixture.  I don't know what you're addressing unless you're arguing that, as a vegetarian, I must be under-prioritizing my convenience and satiation.  In which case...no.

Yes, meat is convenient for satiating hunger.  The opportunity cost associated with meat consumption (especially consumption of cheap meat) is an amount of suffering exponentially higher than the inconvenience we experience.  Especially as a non-poor person from a wealthy country, the inconvenience in getting full without meat is pretty small -- not zero, but pretty small.  For me to find this ethically acceptable, I'd have to prioritize my own convenience and taste preferences like tenfold versus the pain and suffering of animals.

I'm just going to blunt here: how much do you actually care about the ethical concerns in a non-abstract sense?  Do you regularly put any effort into mitigating the resultant suffering?  Have you even made information-gathering attempts to find out how much it would cost you to rely on more 'humanely'-produced meat?  How much time have you actually put into considering the scope of the resultant suffering and how much of your personal convenience is worth that suffering?

I simply don't think people generally weigh the ethical concerns against their convenience and come to an actual conclusion based on sincere ethical consideration.  I think they overwhelmingly avoid thinking about it, do whatever the hell they like, and vaguely rationalize it after the fact.  I also think it's screwed up and we're above this.

[Alcon]

I don't think the problem is any of these diets being severely unhealthy or people lacking basic nutrients.  Nobody is starving to death or getting rickets because they lack access to food in America.  And, a vegetarian diet is not unhealthy.  I never said that.

My point is that eating meat is a good thing in itself, purely from the selfish perspective of the person eating food.  Eating an omnivorous diet makes it easier to be healthy, satisfied, happy with what you eat and have energy/satiety in your daily life.  It's not a must have in any way, it's just a plus.  

That seems like a pretty banal observation: obviously, any restriction on anything we might benefit from or prefer doing is, from a purely selfish perspective, a "bad thing in itself."  A moral prohibition against murderous cannibalism is, from a purely selfish perspective, a bad thing in itself.  A moral prohibition against eating food stolen from orphans is, from a purely selfish perspective, a bad thing in itself.  You've basically reduced your original claim -- which explicitly stated that a given vegetarian would be "healthier" if they added meat to their diet -- to just stating that a moral prohibition against something with potential utility is "a bad thing in itself" from a "purely selfish perspective."  Well, sure, but who would contest that claim?  It's pretty much definitional.

[bedstuy]

If we were going to try to come up with a healthy diet, with health as the end-goal, it's going to have meat.  Does that explain my point more succinctly?  I left it open that you might think that fact, if true, is still not that important.

You raise good points so I should clarify.  If you were giving people information on how to eat healthy, you would tell them to eat meat, from a health perspective.  If they wanted to be vegetarian, you wouldn't advise against it, you would just give them some information about how to get a healthy diet without meat.

That's still a different claim than your original statement.  If you're arguing that it's better to tell people to eat meat, because it has better average health outcomes than eating vegetarian, maybe.  I'm not aware of evidence of this claim -- especially considering that obesity is a much bigger epidemiological problem it the U.S. than nutritional deficiency.  But even if it's true, that's still way different than the claim that meat-eating is better "all else being equal," because it's a claim that rests entirely on recognizing that all else is not equal.

If you went to a doctor with an obesity problem, would they tell you to stop eating meat?  Definitely not.  Some doctors would actually recommend something like the Atkins diet which is a high protein diet.

I'm just going to blunt here: how much do you actually care about the ethical concerns in a non-abstract sense?  Do you regularly put any effort into mitigating the resultant suffering?  Have you even made information-gathering attempts to find out how much it would cost you to rely on more 'humanely'-produced meat?  How much time have you actually put into considering the scope of the resultant suffering and how much of your personal convenience is worth that suffering?

I simply don't think people generally weigh the ethical concerns against their convenience and come to an actual conclusion based on sincere ethical consideration.  I think they overwhelmingly avoid thinking about it, do whatever the hell they like, and vaguely rationalize it after the fact.  I also think it's screwed up and we're above this.

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with eating meat.  I do see a problem with factory farming that really hurts the animals or puts them in a tiny cage or whatever.  It's even more of a problem with it's a pig or a cow or any mammal that is fairly smart.  How much cruelty is too much?  I don't know.  It's hard to evaluate from the consumer end. 

But, I try to buy local meat, grass-fed beef and such.  Not religiously, but if it's relatively similarly priced, I'll spring for it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's important to remember that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.  Still, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a causal relationship.  Meat consumption was partially responsible for the size of our brains.  And meat is high in nutrients that have been shown to be vital to the brain and nervous system. 

In all honesty, this is probably one of the big reasons that kids today have such high rates of ADD/ADHD and similar issues.  Based on the junk science of Ancel Keys that has been propagated by Dean Ornish, Colin Campbell, John McDougall, etc., and the McGovern committee making it the low-fat cult official government policy, our kids' brains are being deprived of the fat they need, and America's rates of heart disease, obesity, and diabetes have gone through the roof.  (The school lunch program, for instance, does not allow whole milk.)  Worse yet, it led us to start consuming more sugar and grains, which has done even more damage to our brains.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You raise good points so I should clarify.  If you were giving people information on how to eat healthy, you would tell them to eat meat, from a health perspective.  If they wanted to be vegetarian, you wouldn't advise against it, you would just give them some information about how to get a healthy diet without meat.

That's still a different claim than your original statement.  If you're arguing that it's better to tell people to eat meat, because it has better average health outcomes than eating vegetarian, maybe.  I'm not aware of evidence of this claim -- especially considering that obesity is a much bigger epidemiological problem it the U.S. than nutritional deficiency.  But even if it's true, that's still way different than the claim that meat-eating is better "all else being equal," because it's a claim that rests entirely on recognizing that all else is not equal.

If you went to a doctor with an obesity problem, would they tell you to stop eating meat?  Definitely not.  Some doctors would actually recommend something like the Atkins diet which is a high protein diet.

Most doctors seem to ascribe to the anti-fat hysteria that says animal fats cause heart disease and obesity.  Makes sense, since they have very little training in diet and get their education from people who are paid by drug companies that make millions of dollars selling statins.  No matter how popular the notion that saturated fat is bad for us may be, it is not supported by science.  The original studies were poorly done and have been widely discredited, yet somehow we still believe it today.

[Alcon]

If we were going to try to come up with a healthy diet, with health as the end-goal, it's going to have meat.  Does that explain my point more succinctly?  I left it open that you might think that fact, if true, is still not that important.

It's more succinct, but it's also totally vague.  There are plenty of healthy diets that don't involve meat..so I'm back to not knowing what your claim really is.  I don't think the solution to that is vagueness .

If you went to a doctor with an obesity problem, would they tell you to stop eating meat?  Definitely not.  Some doctors would actually recommend something like the Atkins diet which is a high protein diet.

OK...but don't you think that's probably because of non-compliance rates, not because -- as you seem to be arguing -- eating vegetarian has inferior average health outcomes?  If you do think it's because of that, what evidence are you basing that assumption off of?

I don't see the point of looking at some vague secondary correlation like this when we have much more specific, variable-controlled evidence available.  I'm also honestly not sure what concrete claim you're making here, either.

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with eating meat.  I do see a problem with factory farming that really hurts the animals or puts them in a tiny cage or whatever.  It's even more of a problem with it's a pig or a cow or any mammal that is fairly smart.  How much cruelty is too much?  I don't know.  It's hard to evaluate from the consumer end. 

Is it really particularly hard to evaluate?  What information do you feel you're lacking?  Do you not understand the extent of suffering factory farming indicates, or are you struggling to figure out whether avoiding that suffering is worth $0.75 or having to buy a $20 monthly supplement?  And in the absence of whatever information you're lacking, your apparent tactic is to set the disutility of cruelty to nearly zero...?

I'm not trying to be mean -- you're one of the smartest, most intellectually honest posters here, bar none -- but this topic seems to result in a lot of post hoc justification.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Another nutrient deficient in the vegan and western diet is vitamin K2.  This vitamin is seeing increased scrutiny by scientists because it may be extremely beneficial in preventing heart disease and cancer... which is pretty huge.

Unfortunately it is almost exclusively available from animal products... they are by far the highest in organ meats.. especially poultry.  But the most complete form comes from beef liver.  (It used to be that a weekly meal of liver and onions was considered good for everyone).

Other good sources:
Hard cheese
Egg yolks
Beef
Chicken
Whole milk
Butter

So the official nutritional guidelines to limit meat and organ consumption and to limit dairy to low fat is actually causing vitamin k2 deficiencies in the western diet.

The only western food commonly consumed based from plants to contain K2 is sauerkraut.  Japanese natto is also a decent source (contains 8 times more than sauerkraut which is a poor source.. but the only western vegan option).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Another nutrient deficient in the vegan and western diet is vitamin K2.  This vitamin is seeing increased scrutiny by scientists because it may be extremely beneficial in preventing heart disease and cancer... which is pretty huge.

Unfortunately it is almost exclusively available from animal products... they are by far the highest in organ meats.. especially poultry.  But the most complete form comes from beef liver.  (It used to be that a weekly meal of liver and onions was considered good for everyone).

Other good sources:
Hard cheese
Egg yolks
Beef
Chicken
Whole milk
Butter

So the official nutritional guidelines to limit meat and organ consumption and to limit dairy to low fat is actually causing vitamin k2 deficiencies in the western diet.

The only western food commonly consumed based from plants to contain K2 is sauerkraut.  Japanese natto is also a decent source (contains 8 times more than sauerkraut which is a poor source.. but the only western vegan option).

Funny how that works.  For so long they've been claiming that animal products CAUSE heart disease and cancer.  Maybe real science is finally starting to get accepted. Woody Allen may have been right all along.
Iron is also seriously deficient in many vegetarian diets.  Although a number of plants contain iron, iron from animal products is more easily synthesized by our bodies.  That's why so many vegetarians are anemic.
Grains are also high in phytic acid, which is block the synthesis of calcium, which is why vegetarians have much higher rates of osteoporosis than non-vegetarians.