Vegetarians more likely to have mental issues...

[Alcon]

Oldiesfreak --

Every direct study I'm finding indicates that the incidence in anemia and osteoporosis isn't statistically significantly different among vegetarians than omnivores.  The only studies I've seen that indicate otherwise studied primarily vegetarian cultures, but weren't conducted with demographic controls.  In fact, there is a positive correlation between dietary animal protein intake and osteoporosis prevalence between countries.  How the heck did you conclude from that body of evidence that the rates are "much higher"?  That doesn't seem like an honest interpretation of the evidence at all.

[Alcon]

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).

Similarly, can you provide a citation that Vitamin K1 conversion is nutritionally insufficient?  This is something I researched about a month ago, and I don't recall scientific support for this claim, either.

[Ebowed]

Just because people are consuming (higher quantities of) low-fat foods, does not indicate that there would be a drop in heart disease and related ailments, particularly if the McGovern report didn't account for the fact that manufacturers would simply replace the fat with sugar, which in turn would exacerbate obesity levels, therefore leaving the population with the same great risks of heart disease, as well as a higher risk of diabetes.

For all the complaining about 'low-fat' dairy, keep in mind that the excess fat is used for cheese production, so it's not exactly like the dairy industry hasn't also gained something out of the anti-fat hysteria.

Blaming vegetarians for deficiencies in B12, iron, etc. when those deficiencies are far more common than the restrictive diets is questionable.  It's not a secret that livestock are fed B12 vitamins so that the risk of deficiency among meat-eaters is lessened.  B12 is produced by bacteria, which is why it is easier to obtain from animal products - but there is nothing about it that precludes it from a vegan diet.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Atkins, btw, is ludicrous junk science.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak --

Every direct study I'm finding indicates that the incidence in anemia and osteoporosis isn't statistically significantly different among vegetarians than omnivores.  The only studies I've seen that indicate otherwise studied primarily vegetarian cultures, but weren't conducted with demographic controls.  In fact, there is a positive correlation between dietary animal protein intake and osteoporosis prevalence between countries.  How the heck did you conclude from that body of evidence that the rates are "much higher"?  That doesn't seem like an honest interpretation of the evidence at all.

First, it's important to keep in mind that correlation does not always mean causation--that also goes for the study that was mentioned at the beginning of this thread.  Vegetarian advocates frequently contend that eating meat leeches calcium out of your bones and causes osteoporosis, but the evidence indicates otherwise.  And second, here are examples of evidence of osteoporosis in vegetarians:

http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/news/20050328/more-osteoporosis-seen-with-raw-foods-diet (from a site that toes the low-fat line)
http://authoritynutrition.com/8-ridiculous-myths-about-meat-and-health/
http://authoritynutrition.com/is-too-much-protein-bad-for-you/
http://nutritionmyths.com/do-acid-forming-foods-cause-osteoporosis/
http://www.businessinsider.com/myths-eating-red-meat-2014-8
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/04/02/vegetarian-myths.aspx#!

[Alcon]

Oldiesfan --

Did you just Google "protein vegetarian myth" or something...?  You've given me a bunch of web sites that mostly address a different claim, have overlapping citations, occasionally misrepresent their citations, and one of them is Mercola.com, which is a "natural health" web site that promotes vaccine denialism.  Promoting vaccine denialism doesn't make you wrong about everything else, but it does make me wonder why you're trusting them...

First, it's important to keep in mind that correlation does not always mean causation--that also goes for the study that was mentioned at the beginning of this thread.

Yes, if you've read my posts in this thread, you'd know I was aware of that.

Vegetarian advocates frequently contend that eating meat leeches calcium out of your bones and causes osteoporosis, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

No one in this thread has made that claim, and that's not the claim you made that I'm challenging.

And second, here are examples of evidence of osteoporosis in vegetarians:

http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/news/20050328/more-osteoporosis-seen-with-raw-foods-diet (from a site that toes the low-fat line)

That's specific to a raw foods diet, which few vegetarians are.  This may be more of a problem when you cut out dairy products, but again, your claim was about eliminating meat.

http://authoritynutrition.com/8-ridiculous-myths-about-meat-and-health/

Here are the studies cited:

Bonjour - "There is no consistent evidence for superiority of vegetal over animal proteins on calcium metabolism, bone loss prevention and risk reduction of fragility fractures."  Says nothing about higher rates of osteoporosis in vegetarians.

Munger - "Intake of dietary protein, especially from animal sources, may be associated with a reduced incidence of hip fractures in postmenopausal women."

Rizzoli and Bonjour - "Increasing dietary protein to the normal intake is beneficial to bone health."

Only one (Munger) supports your claim, and it's a narrow-demographic study that doesn't explicitly compare vegetarian vs. non-vegetarian populations.

http://authoritynutrition.com/is-too-much-protein-bad-for-you/

None of these citations address your claim.

http://nutritionmyths.com/do-acid-forming-foods-cause-osteoporosis/

Citations repeat the Bonjour study.  One of the citations (Kerstetter) doesn't even really conclude what the web site is claiming it does.  Do you even understand the language of the De Santo study -- if so, what does it say?  It's highly technical.

http://www.businessinsider.com/myths-eating-red-meat-2014-8

This doesn't even have citations at all.  That just wasted 2:21 of my life.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/04/02/vegetarian-myths.aspx#!

I'll put aside that Mercola is a crazy web site and this guy is a doctor of naturopathy who's published a book on "non-toxic AIDS treatments" (ughh).  

How can you take this person seriously after the first sentence?  He points out that meat consumption couldn't be responsible for higher cancer rates, because cancer is "primarily a 20th century occurrence."  To be clear, I do not believe that meat consumption raises cancer rates.  But why the hell would you use this argument, which fails to account for the fact that life expectancies are much higher now, when you have apples-to-apples studies with demographic controls?

I could check every citation, but the claim he is addressing is not the one you made that I challenged.  Moreover, I'm really not convinced you've checked these citations, and it's disrespectful to waste my time like that.

SO: I just spent 30 minutes on what you gave me, and came out with ONE relevant citation.  You have not explained why you accept this study over the other studies that do not find this result.  So, why is that?  I certainly sure hope it wasn't because you defer to the people you've linked to (Mercola.com!)

[Alcon]

As far as being so "righteous," I'm simply saying that my morality is Biblically-oriented and largely based on Reformed theology.  Animal rights just aren't one of the top issues for me; there's plenty to be justifiably sad about in this world, but fretting over animal suffering just seems silly to me for the most part.

My point is that I believe there are a lot of moral issues that are real problems and very concerning,  but I simply don't consider animal rights to be one of them.  Furthermore, getting too worked up about animal rights distracts from the fact that humans are rebelling from God's moral law as we are secularizing, and relying on "secular ethics" (your words, not mine) can cause us to focus on the wrong issues.

Have you ever watched a video of a non-human animal being tortured or bleeding out from an injury?  Have you ever watched a deer who got hit by a car and is writhing in agony as its brain floods it with extreme pain?  You are going beyond indifference to this sort of suffering, and actively claiming you think it's unfortunate other people care.  That is intensely screwed up.

Your argument that this is somehow "distracting" from more compelling moral issues is also ridiculous.  You are on a political forum where your recent posts include analyzing your politics compared to some random guy on the Internet, talking about your grades, and endorsing your favorite brand of cheese curds.  Apparently, this completely pointless activity is just fine with you, but you're "thankful" more people don't focus their mental energy on animal suffering, because that is spending time/energy on excessively trivial things?

I see absolutely not a single post in your recent history where you're trying to advocate for "God's moral law" or against the substitution of secular principles.  If you're so bothered by advocacy of animal rights, because you think it distracts from engaging "God's moral law," I assume it's because you think time would be better-served advocating for "God's moral law" -- so let's do that.  Want to start a thread on it?

If you're not interested in that, it makes me wonder what mental energy you think considering animal rights would deplete from you, and makes me wonder whether this is all because, when you strip away your philosophical pretenses, you just don't really give a damn about animal suffering.

Which, not to get all secular-ethics on you, is not required by your religion at all, and is just totally deplorable!

[Ebowed]

100% false and a blatant mischaracterization of what I had said (just like your craven behavior on AAD toward me, Ebowed) - my remark simply pointed out that unfortunately, reckless behavior has the potential for disastrous consequences, as AIDS showed us during the 1980's with drug users and promiscuous people-I wasn't saying this was the right punishment, simply that it did occur.

Here are your statements:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could say I've taken the liberty of simplifying your statements, but mischaracterizing them?  The only one doing that here is you, and attempting to disguise your animosities as some type of justice and/or moral order is fine if that's what you want to do, but you can drop the pretense of utter bewilderment.

[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).

Similarly, can you provide a citation that Vitamin K1 conversion is nutritionally insufficient?  This is something I researched about a month ago, and I don't recall scientific support for this claim, either.

I found a few things:

The human body can convert vitamin K1 into MK-4 (a subset of vitamin k2) which is beneficial for routing calcium from the blood into bones.  It cannot convert any of the other subsets of vitamin K2, including K7, which is potentially very important for preventing calcification of the aorta and preventing bone density loss.

Instead, gut bacteria can convert K1 into various forms of k2.  But this varies widely from person to person based on your gut flora.  

It also means vegans should avoid antibiotics because this can reduce your ability to convert vitamin k1 to k2 by up to 75%.

The main stickler is a study by (Geleijnse et al., 2004) (no link, sorry) that found that while intake of vitamin k2 reduced the risk of osteoperosis and heart disease... intake of vitamin k1 had no impact.  This would suggest that our gut flora don't convert enough vitamin k1 into k2 to have the beneficial impact that dietary k2 can have in regards to those diseases.

[Alcon]

I found a few things:

The human body can convert vitamin K1 into MK-4 (a subset of vitamin k2) which is beneficial for routing calcium from the blood into bones.  It cannot convert any of the other subsets of vitamin K2, including K7, which is potentially very important for preventing calcification of the aorta and preventing bone density loss.

Instead, gut bacteria can convert K1 into various forms of k2.  But this varies widely from person to person based on your gut flora.  

It also means vegans should avoid antibiotics because this can reduce your ability to convert vitamin k1 to k2 by up to 75%.

The main stickler is a study by (Geleijnse et al., 2004) (no link, sorry) that found that while intake of vitamin k2 reduced the risk of osteoperosis and heart disease... intake of vitamin k1 had no impact.  This would suggest that our gut flora don't convert enough vitamin k1 into k2 to have the beneficial impact that dietary k2 can have in regards to those diseases.

This is super weird: that study doesn't appear to be available in any of the common academic databases.  Where did you see it originally?  I've found a few studies that seem to contradict it, so I'd like to see if it addresses them at all in the discussion.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Look, I love meat but I've decided to scale back my meat consumption.

[Alcon]

First, I'm not in favor of animal cruelty and certainly not seeing a deer die as you described.  I have posted my religious considerations a lot on AAD.  Here, I post a lot on more on off-topic threads.

Fair enough, although it doesn't really address the point: how can you find it objectionable that other people spend mental energy on lesser moral/ethical concerns, when you seem to think it's morally acceptable to spend time on stuff that's entirely morally pointless?

I apologize for the tone of my previous posts; it's just that I think people should be able to enjoy a steak in good conscience and think radical environmentalism and animal rights stuff can become its own religion, which was actually a sermon my pastor preached about:  meat is a gift from God, and is one of the few good things to come from the Fall.

Why should someone be able to "enjoy a steak in good conscience" if it's derived in a way that inflicts unnecessary suffering for mild convenience or cost savings?  Your initial position seems to have been "it's totally morally acceptable, so much so that I actively dislike anyone with moral concerns."  Now you seem to have shifted to "maybe there are valid moral concerns, but I hope no one would ever think about them in a way that would distract them from dinner."  That's still a ridiculous position.

Yet again, let me reiterate: your religious belief that meat-eating is intrinsically morally acceptable does not dismiss the concerns I'm bringing up about animal cruelty/suffering.  It seems like you're trying to refocus this conversation on the intrinsic acceptability of meat consumption so that you can dismiss the concerns of cruelty/suffering with your religious beliefs, but that doesn't make sense.

Also, what about the suffering inflicted by other animals on themselves?  Can that not be equally grotesque?

Of course it can be, but animals lack the cognitive capacity to be held responsible for those actions.  We also don't hold humans who lack such cognitive capacity capable for their actions.  (And, for that matter, we don't hold that humans who lack this cognitive capacity are morally acceptable to kill.)

I think slaughterhouses should be given enhanced FDA regulation to ensure consistency in procedure.  It just so happens that, like most Americans, I do not see animal rights at the top of my list of concerns.

I'm still getting the sense your position is "I'm OK with doing something about this so long as it doesn't even mildly inconvenience me, cost me additional money, or give me bothersome thoughts."  No one is asking for this to be "the top of your list of concerns."  I'm asking you to actually think about the disutility you would incur to help mitigate much more disproportionate suffering.  Considering your knee-jerk dismissiveness, where you actually bemoaned that other people care about what you now seem to concede can be valid moral concerns, is this actually something you've given much clear-eyed thought to?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This kind of debate is always very silly. The most important thing is that it doesn't really matter what is "natural" (paleo is a silly trend), just figuring out a way for all people to gain sufficient nutients in an efficient and sustainable manner. On this metric, the current consumption patterns of meat are not ... satisfactory. The (relatively recent) ubiquitisation of the meat + 2 veggies meal is putting enormous stresses on supply chains. Particularly inefficient are fish farms for secondary consumers and the rearing of pork and cattle; but most have their cost. The best meats tend to be shellfish, but I doubt many people will take to a clam-and-mussel-based diet very well. It is very hard to change people's behaviour unfortunately.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Look, I love meat but I've decided to scale back my meat consumption.

I made tacos last night with a vegan "meatless crumble" and it was honestly totally fine. Had I put more effort into the process (I was super tired at the time) I might not have been able to notice a difference. I have no desire to kick meat entirely but I think it would do people some good to experiment a little.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I almost forgot: Vitamin A is only found in animal products.  Plants contain beta-carotene, which your digestive system converts to Vitamin A.

And as for the arguments about animal cruelty: there is absolutely NO moral advantage to a vegetarian diet.  The harvesting of plants for food very frequently kills them as well.  And even when it doesn't, consider this: many animals kill and eat other animals, and there's a reason for it.  If it's not cruel or "barbaric" for them to do it, then why is it for humans to do that?

[Simfan34]

I always do this. Also make a point of avoiding meat substitutes-- because it goes against the point. But I struggle with the "not on Sundays" part. It seems counterintuitive, and I'm uncomfortable eating meat on Sundays during Lent, so I don't even though this is forbidden. Is this sinful? Something I've struggled with.

Paging TJ!

What about the secular ethical issues, if ethics are something you're concerned about?

Animals are tasty. End of story.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

And as for the arguments about animal cruelty: there is absolutely NO moral advantage to a vegetarian diet.  The harvesting of plants for food very frequently kills them as well.

Buddhist temple cuisine avoids root vegetables for exactly that reason.

[bedstuy]

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.

I don't think I would ever choose to be a vegetarian.  To me, there is a huge moral difference between a human and an animal.  I don't think our obligations towards animals is to respect their rights.  Animals don't have rights because they're not part of society. 

The relevant principle is suffering, and I think you agree.  It's wrong to make an animal suffer in a sadistic way that goes beyond the natural order of things.  Animals get eaten in nature, and they nasty, short, brutal lives.  We don't have a responsibility to raise them up beyond that and take care of them.  But, if we're going to farm them and eat them, we should do it in a conscientious way that doesn't cause more suffering than necessary.

Essentially, we have to make uncomfortable trade-offs between human gain and animal suffering.  There's no easy principle there.  The more human-like, the more we care.  For example, I think it would unconscionable to farm apes for food.  And, it's the level of suffering versus the gain for people.  The worst factory farming practices are too cruel to impose on a pig or a cow, I'm sure.  The exact dividing line between ethical farming practice, I don't really know.

And, you're right I should do my research and be more conscientious about my diet.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I found a few things:

The human body can convert vitamin K1 into MK-4 (a subset of vitamin k2) which is beneficial for routing calcium from the blood into bones.  It cannot convert any of the other subsets of vitamin K2, including K7, which is potentially very important for preventing calcification of the aorta and preventing bone density loss.

Instead, gut bacteria can convert K1 into various forms of k2.  But this varies widely from person to person based on your gut flora. 

It also means vegans should avoid antibiotics because this can reduce your ability to convert vitamin k1 to k2 by up to 75%.

The main stickler is a study by (Geleijnse et al., 2004) (no link, sorry) that found that while intake of vitamin k2 reduced the risk of osteoperosis and heart disease... intake of vitamin k1 had no impact.  This would suggest that our gut flora don't convert enough vitamin k1 into k2 to have the beneficial impact that dietary k2 can have in regards to those diseases.

This is super weird: that study doesn't appear to be available in any of the common academic databases.  Where did you see it originally?  I've found a few studies that seem to contradict it, so I'd like to see if it addresses them at all in the discussion.

I found it.  It seems here to deal only with coronary heart disease or all cause mortality.  No specifics on osteoperosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514282

Abstract:

Vitamin K-dependent proteins, including matrix Gla-protein, have been shown to inhibit vascular calcification. Activation of these proteins via carboxylation depends on the availability of vitamin K. We examined whether dietary intake of phylloquinone (vitamin K-1) and menaquinone (vitamin K-2) were related to aortic calcification and coronary heart disease (CHD) in the population-based Rotterdam Study. The analysis included 4807 subjects with dietary data and no history of myocardial infarction at baseline (1990-1993) who were followed until January 1, 2000. The risk of incident CHD, all-cause mortality, and aortic atherosclerosis was studied in tertiles of energy-adjusted vitamin K intake after adjustment for age, gender, BMI, smoking, diabetes, education, and dietary factors. The relative risk (RR) of CHD mortality was reduced in the mid and upper tertiles of dietary menaquinone compared to the lower tertile [RR = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.17) and 0.43 (0.24, 0.77), respectively]. Intake of menaquinone was also inversely related to all-cause mortality [RR = 0.91 (0.75, 1.09) and 0.74 (0.59, 0.92), respectively] and severe aortic calcification [odds ratio of 0.71 (0.50, 1.00) and 0.48 (0.32, 0.71), respectively]. Phylloquinone intake was not related to any of the outcomes. These findings suggest that an adequate intake of menaquinone could be important for CHD prevention.

[Alcon]

I almost forgot: Vitamin A is only found in animal products.  Plants contain beta-carotene, which your digestive system converts to Vitamin A.

It took me like 30 minutes to do the research responding to you, and you completely ignored it.  It's not like it was a trivial point; you stated it as if it was one of the tentpoles of your argument.

But  neither argument you've substituted is any good, either:

And as for the arguments about animal cruelty: there is absolutely NO moral advantage to a vegetarian diet.  The harvesting of plants for food very frequently kills them as well.

No.  Keep in mind that, because of trophic levels, feeding the animals we eat prompts us to harvest a considerable number of plants -- so switching to a vegetarian diet would not, in fact, decrease the number of plants we harvest.  Moreover, pigs are probably more aware of their own suffering than, say, insects.

And even when it doesn't, consider this: many animals kill and eat other animals, and there's a reason for it.  If it's not cruel or "barbaric" for them to do it, then why is it for humans to do that?

I have already addressed this argument in this thread, and it's really bad.  It may very well be cruel or barbaric for them to kill people, but they're not aware of right or wrong.  As I mentioned before, we don't hold entities (including humans) morally responsible if they're unable to understand right and wrong.  If you're arguing that it's acceptable for a human to do whatever an animal does, then you're arguing that animal cruelty by humans is totally acceptable.  Do you believe that?

[Alcon]

I don't think I would ever choose to be a vegetarian.  To me, there is a huge moral difference between a human and an animal.  I don't think our obligations towards animals is to respect their rights.  Animals don't have rights because they're not part of society.  

Can you expand on that a little?  I assume you also think humans should have rights, even if they are incapable of understanding and fully participating in society.  Why do you grant rights that way, and if you do, do you think animal cruelty is morally acceptable?  It doesn't necessarily make sense to oppose animal cruelty as "morally disordered" if animals aren't rights-bearing, after all.

The relevant principle is suffering, and I think you agree.  It's wrong to make an animal suffer in a sadistic way that goes beyond the natural order of things.  Animals get eaten in nature, and they nasty, short, brutal lives.  We don't have a responsibility to raise them up beyond that and take care of them.  But, if we're going to farm them and eat them, we should do it in a conscientious way that doesn't cause more suffering than necessary.

It's not like the alternative here is that they're going to be frolicking in the forest.  We specifically breed these animals to slaughter.  The question in determining the morally superior outcome is whether mass-breeding them for consumption is a morally superior outcome than not doing so.  Even with "conscientious" mass-farming techniques (which, despite how often people pay lip service, almost no one does) I doubt that's the case; I expect they always cause more suffering than "necessary."

Essentially, we have to make uncomfortable trade-offs between human gain and animal suffering.  There's no easy principle there.  The more human-like, the more we care.  For example, I think it would unconscionable to farm apes for food.

I think it's dangerous to start delineating moral rights based on a subjective standard of how much entities resemble us, versus how much they possess the substantive properties that we think justify rights.  For instance, I don't think we should justify ignoring the cognitive advancement of pigs with subjective dissimilarity -- their lack of superficial visual similarity seems a lot more important.  I mean, would you support the "subjective similarity" standard when granting rights to people instead of analyzing substantive properties?  I think the "subjective similarity" standard is directly responsible for a lot of the moral atrocities of history.

And, it's the level of suffering versus the gain for people.  The worst factory farming practices are too cruel to impose on a pig or a cow, I'm sure.  The exact dividing line between ethical farming practice, I don't really know.

Do you really think there's a remotely credible argument that it's anywhere near what we're doing now?  It seems like the whole "the line is hard to draw" response almost always ends up being used as a convenient rationalization to not draw a line at all, and put zero or near-zero effort into being conscientious.  

And, you're right I should do my research and be more conscientious about my diet.

Fair enough.

[Alcon]

Animals are tasty. End of story.

Are you being glib, or is this seriously your argument?  I know you're not dumb, and you must know how disastrous "it's morally acceptable for me to do whatever I want as long as I want to do it" is.  How well has that sort of moral glibness worked in history?

I found it.  It seems here to deal only with coronary heart disease or all cause mortality.  No specifics on osteoperosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15514282

Abstract:

Vitamin K-dependent proteins, including matrix Gla-protein, have been shown to inhibit vascular calcification. Activation of these proteins via carboxylation depends on the availability of vitamin K. We examined whether dietary intake of phylloquinone (vitamin K-1) and menaquinone (vitamin K-2) were related to aortic calcification and coronary heart disease (CHD) in the population-based Rotterdam Study. The analysis included 4807 subjects with dietary data and no history of myocardial infarction at baseline (1990-1993) who were followed until January 1, 2000. The risk of incident CHD, all-cause mortality, and aortic atherosclerosis was studied in tertiles of energy-adjusted vitamin K intake after adjustment for age, gender, BMI, smoking, diabetes, education, and dietary factors. The relative risk (RR) of CHD mortality was reduced in the mid and upper tertiles of dietary menaquinone compared to the lower tertile [RR = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.17) and 0.43 (0.24, 0.77), respectively]. Intake of menaquinone was also inversely related to all-cause mortality [RR = 0.91 (0.75, 1.09) and 0.74 (0.59, 0.92), respectively] and severe aortic calcification [odds ratio of 0.71 (0.50, 1.00) and 0.48 (0.32, 0.71), respectively]. Phylloquinone intake was not related to any of the outcomes. These findings suggest that an adequate intake of menaquinone could be important for CHD prevention.

I'll look at the full abstract ASAP, but this appears to be a single study correlating K2 (but not K1) consumption with a decreased risk of CHD and all-cause mortality.  That's interesting, but your original post stated that K2 is receiving "increased scrutiny" because it may be "extremely beneficial in preventing heart disease and cancer," and explicitly claimed that "the official nutritional guidelines to limit meat and organ consumption...[are] actually causing vitamin K2 deficiencies."  There's no way that this single study can warrant those statements...especially since several of your claims clearly don't refer to this one study.

In any case, it appears vegan K2 supplements are available and not particularly expensive (certainly less so than meat), so this seems like a fairly weak argument either way.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I think the portion that reads "We examined whether dietary intake of phylloquinone (vitamin K-1) and menaquinone (vitamin K-2) were related to aortic calcification and coronary heart disease (CHD) in the population-based Rotterdam Study." Should clarify that.

Also further down
"Phylloquinone intake was not related to any of the outcomes. "


Regardless of my claims, you have to admit that a vegan diet cannot get you all of the vital nutrients needed to live a healthy life without artificially made nutritional supplements.  And there is plenty of research that shows many nutrients from supplements are not absorbed readily into the body while they usually are from natural food sources.

Your claim was that the body can adequately convert k1 into k2.  I disagreed and showed you a study contrary to your claims.

In fact, vitamin k2 is seeing higher scrutiny and its low consumption in the western diet could be bad because in order to get enough of it from food rather than supplemental sources would mean going outside of the recommended dietary guidelines which tell us to limit strictly the foods that contain the highest amounts of k2...like butter, hard cheese, whole milk, egg yolks, organ meats, and fattier muscle meats.

More study is needed on the subject because what's there is limited.  But there is at least one robst study that correlates dietary vitamin k2 intake with lower coronary heart disease and lower overall death rates...that simultaneously found no such correlation with dietary intake of vitamin k1. 

[Alcon]

I think the portion that reads "We examined whether dietary intake of phylloquinone (vitamin K-1) and menaquinone (vitamin K-2) were related to aortic calcification and coronary heart disease (CHD) in the population-based Rotterdam Study." Should clarify that.

Also further down
"Phylloquinone intake was not related to any of the outcomes. "

More study is needed on the subject because what's there is limited.  But there is at least one robst study that correlates dietary vitamin k2 intake with lower coronary heart disease and lower overall death rates...that simultaneously found no such correlation with dietary intake of vitamin k1. 

Right, I read that just fine, and that matches the paraphrase I just gave.  I'm all for more study on this.

Regardless of my claims, you have to admit that a vegan diet cannot get you all of the vital nutrients needed to live a healthy life without artificially made nutritional supplements.  And there is plenty of research that shows many nutrients from supplements are not absorbed readily into the body while they usually are from natural food sources.

What do you mean by "absorbed readily"?  The uptake of synthetic vitamins is less effective per-unit, sure, but are you claiming that artificial supplements are insufficient to meet nutritional requirements?

Your claim was that the body can adequately convert k1 into k2.  I disagreed and showed you a study contrary to your claims.

No, I didn't "claim" that.  I said I researched the topic month ago, and didn't find any scientific support for the inverse claim.  It would have been a "claim" if I stated something to be true, like you did when you called K2 "extremely beneficial in preventing heart disease and cancer," and explicitly claimed that "the official nutritional guidelines to limit meat and organ consumption...[are] actually causing vitamin K2 deficiencies."

I'm still confused about how you are stating those linkages unequivocally, when there's no proposed mechanism for the K2 discrepancy (from what I can tell), and other studies appear to show contrasting results.  I'm also not sure where "extremely beneficial" came from...is that your interpretation of the effect sizes here?

In fact, vitamin k2 is seeing higher scrutiny and its low consumption in the western diet could be bad because in order to get enough of it from food rather than supplemental sources would mean going outside of the recommended dietary guidelines which tell us to limit strictly the foods that contain the highest amounts of k2...like butter, hard cheese, whole milk, egg yolks, organ meats, and fattier muscle meats.

I'm confused about what you're arguing here.  It's bad that we don't consume enough, because in order to consume enough, we'd need to eat foods that are otherwise bad for us?  I assume whatever you're saying is unrelated to vegetarianism (unless I misunderstand)?

[TJ in Oregon]

Incidentally, I went vegetarian for Lent last year.  It helped that Sundays are not part of Lent, as the only real problem I had with it was when I was dining with friends and family.

I always do this. Also make a point of avoiding meat substitutes-- because it goes against the point. But I struggle with the "not on Sundays" part. It seems counterintuitive, and I'm uncomfortable eating meat on Sundays during Lent, so I don't even though this is forbidden. Is this sinful? Something I've struggled with.

Paging TJ!

No, it is not sinful to eat meat on Sundays during Lent even if you give it up. It is not sinful even to break a Lenten resolution during the other days of the week though it is obviously better not to.

If you ask a bunch of priests this question most of them will probably tell you to do things you gave up on Sundays and some will probably tell you not to. Generally, I don't eat particular foods I give even on Sundays since it feels like it breaks the resolution, but I also don't fast on Sundays. You can do as you see fit on this topic without running afoul of any church teachings or disciplines.

I am not a vegetarian but I do think there is something virtuous about their self-sacrifice. I don't eat much meat but if I stopped entirely I would realistically also have to stop running. While I'm sure it is possible to get by running 75 miles a week without eating meat it would be very difficult and I would probably need to start taking whey protein or something. I'm also borderline-anemic with meat in my diet, so I would need to really structure my diet around getting enough iron. I went on iron pills for a brief stint a few years back and my body did not react well. I suppose that is an option if absolutely necessary but not one I want to undertake.