Four Weeks of a Vegan Diet Alter Signs of Inflammation and Aging(uniklinik-freiburg.de) |
Four Weeks of a Vegan Diet Alter Signs of Inflammation and Aging(uniklinik-freiburg.de) |
Everyone is different, but if you weren't actually able to hit protein macros then I think that's a skill that isn't too hard to improve for most people (if they have a decent reason for wanting to go vegan in the first place).
I've been vegan for 15+ years, and I'm willing to say there are zero health benefits over a healthy omnivorous diet. The people who find one are misattributing it. It's not that vegan is healthier, just that what they were doing before was decidedly unhealthy. For a lot of people going vegan is the first time they actually think about what they eat, read labels etc, which is where most of the benefit comes from.
The methods say people were allocated to vegan versus "high meat consumption" foods, with participants free to choose their diets. The only restriction was you had to "try" to increase intake if losing weight, and "try" to decrease intake if gaining weight. (i.e. only isocaloric per basal rate, not across the board). Then the linked studies hint heavily that the vegan group tended towards less protein but more fibre, and roughly equal carbs (fat is not mentioned!!). Which at the very least shows the diets were not "equivalent bar for meat", let alone for "moderate" (i.e. potentially healthy) amounts of meat.
So they're not comparing "healthy wholefood vegan vs healthy wholefood meat diets". They're comparing availability and behavioural tendencies towards dietary choices when aiming for a short term vegan diet versus when aiming for a short term diet characterised by excessive amounts of meat.
I honestly don't get why they do studies like this. It's a waste of time for everyone involved. It's almost like they're only after a headline extolling veganism, rather than actually useful comparisons that could lead to real, actionable dietary insights. Really, if anything, a supported conclusion here could even be that meat diets are likely healthier given sufficient fibre supplementation.
Essentially, if you go from eating shit at whatever time of the day to following a well-specified eating regime... of course you'll get benefits.
Dumb example: this professor lost 27 pounds and got improvements across various markers by eating Twinkies - link: https://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profe...
I'm curious how problems like this would be dealt with in a vegan world. Just let the cats loose on the local rodent and bird population, maybe?
^ that's an example of one I found.
This may be correct technique for a small-n, short-duration study.
But don't expect the results to be applicable to typical non-vegans.
As if this planet will even be worth living on if climate change continues to go unchecked. Or if humanity will even exist after the inevitable mass extinction eventThat being said, people don’t eat macronutrients, they eat foods. With equal caloric intake, a vegan diet is going to be higher in fiber and lower in fat and protein than a diet that includes meat. That’s probably part of why it’s healthy, but the reason for doing this study is to understand the mechanisms in more detail, rather than just claiming that one is better than the other.
When you say they should have supplemented fiber, you’re also implying they should have had less meat. According to the linked paper from this year, the meat-rich diet included at least 150g of meat per day, which is just a bit more than a chicken breast or a single burger patty. Probably in line with what many expect from a balanced meal.
Why? This is a non-sequitur. As are the other assertions in my opinion. You can have meat based diets rich in fibre (e.g. the mediterranean diet), and you can have vegan diets completely devoid of them (e.g. living off McDonalds plantburgers for the rest of your life).
The problem is this conflating of veganism, which at its heart is an ethical movement, as a nutritional one. So designing studies that intentionally blur this line isn't doing anyone no favours.
If I see a study comparing vegan junkfood against the mediterranean diet where the vegan diet still comes on top, I'd change my tune. But the reverse scenario, i.e. comparing meat-based diets of a nature that most people would intuitively consider unhealthy anyway (i.e. not necessarily because of the meat) against vegan diets which most people would intuitively consider healthy anyway (i.e. not necessarily because of the veganism) provides zero useful evidence.
And if I were to make a dietary choice for ethical reasons, I would much more appreciate insights coming from impartial science over an echo chamber, academic or otherwise.
Anger is a reasonable response to abuse and exploitation of sentient beings.
I am a pesca-pescaterian, btw.
So they're precisely vegan, with fish.
There is no gray area when it comes to veganism. Just because there is no word for that diet, does not mean you can just twist the definition of vegan for your convenience.
You could easily just say your a pescatarian who doesn’t eat dairy or eggs, and that would be more correct.
Now apply to other people whatever mental gymnastics it took you to forgive yourself, and leave us be. kthxbye
There is no forgiveness, I feel fully guilty.
You project your mental gymnastics. Make assumptions based on your own cognitive dissonance. It's obvious which view is the simple and consistent one.
i'm happy for u tho
or sorry that happened
Vegan Puritanism is totally antithetical to our collective goal of reducing animal suffering. Rather than being motivated by the prospect of claiming moral superiority, our goal should be to help the animals.
There's no policing body here, but people are rightfully calling the double-standard out here.
Edit: Would also love to hear the ethics of why fish can be eaten when cows/chicken/pigs cannot. Doesn't sound ethically consistent to me at all.
You can reduce harm, but you cannot call yourself vegan until you actually eliminate the possibility of eating animals or their products from your life. There is no reason you HAVE to eat fish.
Should the study filter out people who eat entirely plant-based for reasons other than ethics. because according to you, that’s not a true vegan diet.
I think you are largely correct that veganism is a lifestyle, not a diet. But in the context in which my comment was made, it was perfectly reasonable for me to say “vegan except for fish,” because the study was analyzing veganism as a diet, not as an ethical lifestyle.
Just an observation I have found recently.
> I ain't reading all that
You reveal your crude thought process and intellectual laziness which explains everything about this thread.
Fish aren’t lesser beings, they are living creatures like anything else.
Just stop saying “vegan except fish”. Say you eat plants and fish. That’s all you have to do.
I don't know why you take offense to someone saying "vegan except for beef" or "vegan except for fish." There is nothing inherently wrong with these statements. It just depends on whether you view veganism as a lifestyle or as a diet, which can vary depending on the context. In the context of a nutrition study, we are obviously talking about the diet, not the lifestyle.
What you are talking about is the Plant Based Diet, which minimizes but doesn't fully exclude animal products, and is not an ethical framework.
You might as well say "I eat Kosher except for pork". It's nonsense.