Thr truth is this: Veganism is terrible for your health and even more terrible for the environment.
Sure, some people can get away with it -at least for some time. But all the latest conceptual breakthroughs of dietary science lets us understand how all the “good reasons” don’t really work.
Antinutrients are abundant in veggies, espeically raw ones. Toxins, pesticides, disruptors all have a cozy home in soyboy’s favorite snacks. Fiber was totally hyped for decades, especially in regards to aiding syndroms of constipation and also hinders nutrient absorption. et cetera
Animal products, on the other hand, have had a rotten time with every negative aspect either overblown or straight up made up. The truth is, meat delivers its nutrients without much fuss. There’s a growing community of carnivores who actually look healthy despite their extremely limited dietary options. Ketones do work and the brain does not need external sugar additives, sweet gluconeogenesis be praised!
To believe that some great athletes are shaped by an (supposedly!) animal-sparing diet is ridiculous. People switch to veganism under loud, virtuous noises but occasionally sin in delicious, bacon-fried silence or sneak back to omnivorous pastures as if nothing happened. While vegans attack their apostates with feeble howls and downvotes, the morally inferior steaklings don’t care.
So why does veganism enjoy such a positive reputation apart from the obvious pseudo religious signaling reasons? Big companies want to sell you the cheapest crap at the highest price. A lumpy carb is waaaay easier to produce, store, process and dump. And these guys are real politcal heavyweights.
A harder, more interesting question for me is: Why are bodybuilders so nice and tolerant? The majority of vegans are their natural enemies (weak, low-test, low-confidence, low-libido leftists). Bodybuilders (strong, self-elevated libertarians and traditionalists) know best that vegan “athletes” circumvent their disadvantages through this one, weird, syringical trick. Maybe they are simply more forgiving since they’ve grown used to their heroes being a bit hypocritical with their supposedly miraculous protein powders.
5 Likes
Bravo ! Quite the wordsmith. Fucking awesome post.
The truth is that eating plants is the only proven way to reduce risk and even reverse heart disease. Anti nutrients, toxins, and pesticides may matter, but eating more plants still makes people healthier. For 99% of people on this forum eating more meat is not going to make them healthier. For 99% of people here, eating more vegetables is going to make them healthier. It’s really that simple.
1 Like
That isn’t what the science shows. In the more recent meta analysis of studies, veggies are coming out as pretty neutral on health. Regardless, eating “plants” is a pretty ridiculously broad brush. Go eat more number ones at McDonalds, just take out the patty. Potato fried in vegetable oil, bread, ketchup, and a corn sugar drink. 100% plant. In fact a regular off the menu fast food meal is plant based because plant calories are cheaper than animal as mentioned. The whole “everybody should just eat more plants” shtick is laughable. Almost everyone has problems with various plants. In tolerances, allergies, bloating, inflammation…
If you find ones you tolerate well, that’s great, but there are a lot of people stuffing themselves with plants they shouldn’t be eating and are making themselves miserable and less healthy because of dumb advice like this.
2 Likes
Lol. If you tell someone to “eat more plants”, 0% of them are going to think of McDonalds as the way to do that. I guess you can’t tell anyone to eat anything because they won’t understand what you mean and they’ll just eat fast food. Just stop please.
They aren’t a lot of people stuffing themselves with plants. If there was, we wouldn’t be so fat. Most people need more.
Please link up these studies. I’m always open to (good) data.
Also, what are you eating then? Do you not eat vegetables? Only meat?
Yes, a lot of people do think that way. They think vegan sausage and impossible whopper. People really think switching to the impossible whopper is a healthy thing to do.
I will try to look up where I found stuff later, but in full disclosure I do not read the studies. I listen to podcasts mostly, like stronger by science.
I’m meat based (most of my calories), but no, I eat veggies and fruit. I’m just conscious and selective about what plants I eat now. I’m not going to eat broccoli because it has X beneficial compound if it gives me gas and bloating. I also it a lot of offal FTR.
Yes for sure. I’m not arguing that. My point is more that the best way for most people to improve their health is going to be by eating more whole plant foods. Vegetables, fruits, whole grains, potatoes, legumes if tolerated, etc. Versus telling someone to A. Eat more meat or B. Plants might not benefit you
1 Like
All of the plants you mentioned need the * “if tolerated”. For one, I don’t think grains are part of a healthy diet for humans. Many people can get away with them and that’s fine, I still eat some on occasion for taste and convenience, but they at best are unnecessary.
I also disagree with your recommendation. I think eating more whole foods is generally a better recommendation. Everyone would be better off getting away from processed crap, plant or animal in source. What I think you are missing though is that many of the worst offenders are plant and especially “vegan” foods.
Organs. Probably the healthiest food humans can eat. With the added ethical benefit of not driving meat production. Cows aren’t raised or killed for their kidneys.
I agree with most of this.
There are far more ways to harm yourself by nutrient deficiency or anti-nutrient “poisoning” by eating plants than by eating animals. This makes it much harder for the general population to be healthy on a plant-exclusive diet than on an omnivorous diet, or even an animal exclusive diet.
Also, if someone could eat only one species of organism for food, one could thrive on properly raised or naturally harvested versions of many species of animals, but it would be almost impossible to live on a single species of plant for 6 months as they would almost all yield a fatal deficiency or fatal levels of an anti-nutrient.
Adding some animal products to a largely plant based diet will eliminate virtually all nutrient deficiencies. To organize an optimal diet with only plants takes about a 9/10 on the management scale. To organize an optimal diet that includes animal products only takes about a 6/10. You just have to remember to stay away from the more inflammatory/allergenic plant based foods, primarily those related to the seed (and varying somewhat by the individual person), to avoid a lot of sugar and to avoid high omega-6 oils, and some plants that are exposed to the worst chemicals.
Nevertheless, that diet could still be considered “plant based” in terms of the volume of food that is on your plate. Carbs and fructose and omega-6 are not “absolute” anti-nutrients, they are relative anti-nutrients.
And yet school lunches in the '00’s replaced saturated fat with the same basic plant based food items in the McD’s without the patty: Sugar, starch and omega-6 high oils.
1 Like
The best way for American’s to improve health with the simplest approach is to have them reduce sugar and high omega-6 oils, and to strongly question whether they tolerate wheat, beans, corn and oats (as well as milk) which are the foods most likely to produce sensitivities that raise cortisol.
Those sensitivity provoking foods cause poor sleep and even snoring and sleep apnea. I slept horribly for most of my adult life until I cut wheat, beans, corn, oats, milk and added sugar. When I cut them out, I started sleeping through the night without upper respiratory inflammation, and if I add one back, especially after noon I sleep poorly.
1 Like
I don’t trust the studies in most fields, because they are simply garbage, designed to enforce a profitable course. I know, I know, such obvious buffoonery!
So which macho-creed do I obviously follow? The answer might suprise you: I follow science.
Turns out, only one part of modern science is peer reviewed studies (Of course, the biggest part is good ole money-making - dollar makes not only right, but true!). Theory is what makes my lustful stomach’s digestive juices flow. And what do you know, pretty much ALL theory in regards to nutrition was not only faulty, but oftentimes deliberately falsified.
But, but…the studies?! Yes, many studies advised millions of women to take estrogen pills. Soy’s putative benefits have been thoroughly supported by studies, studies and more studies. Calorie restriction and fat avoidance was a no-brainer, after all: so many studies- thankfully we all know better now.
It’s incredibly difficult to construct good studies on nutrition while also not taking the shekel from Big Carb (Like naughty, naughty Harvard did here).
Face it, our theories led us nowhere. In fact, we used straight up cynical falsification with millions of human bodies. Fat, old, young, healthy. We took everyone and threw them into Potemkin’s wonderland. Now we’re fatter, more depressed, sugar craving and recently even younger to die.
No studies for me, thanks. I use regular toilet paper.
1 Like
Yes, 100%. Eating more whole foods reduces sugar intake. It’s just more directive to say “eat more vegetables” than to say “eat less sugar”. Similar end result.
1 Like
That’s what I said. Whole foods, but mostly plants.
The prevalence of food intolerances (e.g. gluten) are vastly overstated. Most people shouldn’t worry about that.
What “science” are you using then?
No. I did not say, nor did I mean, mostly plants. You have to be more careful with plants than with consuming animals. Gluten specifically as a problem is overstated, but many other issues with plants are understated. Additionally the benefits of plants specifically and as a collective are also overstated.