It is a very common mistake to think that veganism is a healthy and sustainable diet, so would the vegetarian diet. Whether we want to or not, the human being is biologically an omnivore, that is, in order to take advantage of the nutrients of a purely vegetable diet, he should have a much longer intestine than he has. It therefore needs the ingestion of a certain amount of animal proteins for these provide the necessary vitamins and trace elements that are not available in vegetables, or replace them with food supplements (yeasts or others), but more natural with animal products such as dairy and eggs. Even our closest relatives like chimpanzees and bonobos supplement their diet with insects and other animals. What is not sustainable or healthy is our current diet, which includes meat and animal products, not 2-3 times a week, but 3 times a day / 7 days a week. This is the real problem, caused by massive livestock and overfishing, with all its negative effects on the environment, apart from the consequences on our health (obesity, coronary diseases, diabetes, rheumatic diseases, allergies, etc.)

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Being omnivore means you're not specialized in one source of food, but that you can feed from basically anything. It does not mean that you need to take in everything you can digest on a regular basis.

Humans can run, climb and swim. We're not great at any of these ways of movement, but not many animals match our versatility. I can't outrun a wolf, but I can get out of its reach on a tree. I can't swim away from a crocodile, but it will have a hard time catching me on dry land. On the other hand, a lot of predators wouldn't follow me into the water.

We're generalists. Being able to do a lot of things usually means that you don't excel at specifics. I wouldn't argue that regularly swimming, climbing and running is unhealthy, on the contrary. But the inverse argument, that you can't have a healthy way of life without all of those, is obviously incorrect.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Omnivoro don't mean that we can live with only vegetables in our food and stay healthy in the long run. Because there are food components that our body needs and that are not contained in vegetable foods or only in insufficient quantities. But these components are found in foods of animal origin in highly concentrated quantities and for this reason they must be part of the diet in reduced quantities. For this reason, a healthy diet for us is not vegan, but a so-called vegetarian one, which includes animal products such as milkproducts (cheese, yogurt), eggs, especially in childhood and youth. We can also eat meat and fish, but this should be occasional foods. In nature, all herbivorous animals necessarily have a much longer intestine than we do, in order to extract enough nutrients from vegetables, or like ruminants, several stomachs where the necessary proteins are provided by bacteria formed in the fermentation of vegetables (that is, a cow in the background also feeds on animal proteins, that of bacteria)

https://empoweredsustenance.com/is-vegan-healthy/

https://www.foodandwine.com/news/german-nutritionists-say-veganism-isnt-healthy

https://www.laurelofleaves.com/2012/04/a-vegan-diet-is-not-healthy/ etc..

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sorry, but false dichotomy/strawman here: I never said you should only eat vegetables, nor would any vegan I can think of. What I say is that maybe you don't have to eat meat/eggs/diary products to have enough iron, B12 and what not. Do people substitute those when living vegan? Most surely they do, yes. Does that make an unhealthy diet? I don't think so, no.

Also, what would distinguish a "so called" vegetarian diet from a real one?

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

First the vegetarian diet include animal products, the vegan don't, that is the significant difference. Yes, we can eat as omnivoros also a diet based in vegetables, but not only, we can't sufficiently metabolize the necessary nutrients of a strictly vegetable diet. Just like other omnivores. A dog, a bear, a pig, and even our closest relatives, the chimpanzee, can eat vegetables, but they have to supplement this diet from time to time with animal protein to stay healthy. Of course, a strict vegan can make up for these deficiencies with the intake of supplements, vitamins, proteins and trace elements, but I don't know, a diet that must be accompanied with pills, at least for me, is far from being healthy, sustainable and balanced.

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm well aware of the difference between vegetarian and vegan diets, thank you. 😉 I only wonder what you'd call a "so called" vegetarian diet, like I said.

Other than that, I think that you're a) falling for the appeal to nature fallacy, assessing things as good because they appear in nature (despite that, for instance, without artificial care your teeth will be likely rotten away by the age of 30), and b) taking stuff as natural only because it has been there for a long time: yet unless you're eating raw eggs and meat, nothing about such a diet is natural in the true sense of the word. Consuming another species' milk is even quite unique in the animal kingdom and by no means natural - it's an artificial, a cultural thing.

And culture can change. Not only are dairy products a rather European theme, I don't see why it should be better to get proteins from highly processed and seasoned burger patties and sausages etc. (which, let's be honest for a minute, are the dominant forms of meat consumption) than from e.g. pulses, or what makes iron from red meat healthier than iron from algea. If the presentation in the form of pills doesn't appeal to you, I'm sure there is B12 powder as well.

There are millions of living healthy vegans proving my point, as well as vegan athletes, performing no worse than their omnivore competition. In the light of all this evidence, I'm convinced that the health argument has mostly become a distraction from moral questions: Is it OK to consume feeling and at least somewhat sentient beings for culinary or traditional reasons while at the same time having a disastrous impact on the ecosystem?

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There are millions of healthy young vegans, depending on their lifestyle and activity. Vegan diet is possible, but only well planned and with the needed complements. Because of this it's better a vegetarian diet, wich aports these complements with some animal products, instead of artificial products. It's correct that the human is the only species which have milk of other species in the diet, but this is irrelevant, because its a similar resource of calcium, and vit A, D and complex of B as in the own milk. Try to keep your young child healthy with soy milk, as I have seen in some cases of fanatical vegans, with dire consequences.

But in general I mentioned dairy products, such as cheeses and yogurts, instead of milk, since milk as it is is not well digestible for an adult as it lacks the necessary enzymes to digest it well, only present in children, but this is valid regardless of whether the milk is their own or from a cow, goat or sheep, also a adult cow can't digest well the own milk. These enzymes are not needed in cheese or other curdled milkproducts. Perhaps humans will evolve in the future with a 5m longer intestine, to allow us to take advantage of all the nutrients from vegetables, but until then there is no option to stay healthy in the long term.

If it is for reasons of sustainability, it is better to use animal products in their proper measure and not abuse them as in our current society. It is better to have 1 top quality steak a week, than a steak from the supermarket every day. Or, switch to insect protein, as is done in many countries, which is certainly the most sustainable source of premium quality protein and nutrients, business as usual. Well basically there is not much difference between a shrimp or a grasshopper.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Try to keep your young child healthy with soy milk, as I have seen in some cases of fanatical vegans, with dire consequences.

Why would I give soy milk to young children?? Children have mothers milk or specially crafted formula and then start eating other foods.

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Yes, without a doubt, but i've seen vegans who do this, because milk isn't vegan and which don't even use honey in their diet nor using yeast as complement. Works in young people some years, but all they finished with 40-50 years with several serious health diseases. As I say, fanatism is bad and it is idiotic to pretend that it from falling from one extreme to the other due to alleged unnatural excesses in the past in meat feeding to the other just as unnatural only with vegetals. https://www.newsweek.com/parents-convicted-feeding-baby-vegetable-milk-625626

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

I mean honey isn't vegan, yeah. Yeast is though, obviously.

[–] Aarkon@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

While it is true that certain dietary deficits take years to surface in actual somatic issues and probably as well that the majority of vegans is younger than the western average, neither is evidence that a vegan diet (especially a modern one) can't be sustainable & healthy for a whole lifetime.

Large fractions of the world's population don't eat diary products at all (like said before, lactose tolerance is rather the exception than the rule, globally), and others don't have access to meat/fish, at least regularly, can't keep certain animals or what not - do you consider all that unhealthy?

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Banned from c/vegan for this one. My bad.

Yeah, because it is utter nonsense. Depending on the source 60-90% of the soy is being fed to animals.

Edit: If that is the point of the post...

[–] southerntofu@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Making the point specifically about soybeans was stupid, but i think it's important to criticize the "eco-friendly"/"vegan" capitalist industry. I'm happy to elaborate if you will.

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

think it's important to criticize the "eco-friendly"/"vegan" capitalist industry.

Absolutely!

I'm happy to elaborate if you will.

I really liked your posts so far, so I'd also gladly read your elaboration on that topic =)

[–] toneverends@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It's art, thus invites interpretations and provokes thought.

Extrapolating from the 60-90% figure, if the eaters of those animals ate the soy directly (bypassing the ~10% conversion efficiency issue), 19-46% of the soy would still need to be grown, thus 19-46% of the ecological destruction would remain.

This would be a wonderful improvement and would be of great benefit to Earth; the statement is lessened, yet remains: Consuming broadacre soy crops destroys ecosystems.

Which returns us to the topic at hand in the c/vegan thread which inspired this meme:

Humane... destroying of ecosystems to grow soybeans.

– commented as an extrapolation of a series of statements exploring the absurdity of calling various animal slaughter/husbandry practices "humane".

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah wow. Convincing people to stop killing and eating animals is hard enough, what would be the better option? Making people kill themselves? That sounds like a practical alternativw

[–] toneverends@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

For real? Pull your head out of your vegan high-horse! Just sit in the sea of ideas for a while and listen to your own mind to see if some new thought comes along.

For the situation of ecological destruction to grow crops, it needs more consideration if you're vacillating between denial and universal human genocide.

Alternatively, accept that the vegans and the carnists are sitting in the same clump on the "humane spectrum". One doesn't get to opt-out of moral culpability by being vegan.

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

I am still not sure what your point is?

We have to eat something and a vegan diet is one where we minimize land use by directly consuming the "raw" materials instead of a middle-men that introduce a significant amount of energy loss.

It is definitely necessary to improve the way modern agriculture works. Large monocultures do not provide a healthy ecosystem and we should work on creating a diverse and vibrant ecosystem. I really liked the movie The Biggest Little Farm that showed an alternative (despite them endorsing omnivore diets).

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago

Wtf I dont think you actually refer to my comment here