Talk:Veganism/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 3 November 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Trash

This page is complete trash and consists of unchallenged assumptions, emotive language, and a poor understanding of the evidence. Are there no mods with scientific backgrounds checking this crap? As it stands it's not rational and simply perpetuating misinformation and psuedoscience.

Let's start with Omegas.

Calling the DHA/ALA conversion rate 'poor' is a petitio principii: it assumes that we need some higher level of DHA or rate of conversion of ALA to DHA, and finding that the conversion rate is lower than this cites its own premise as proof that conversion from ALA is inadequate. According to the research, Vegans that never eat fish get much better at converting ALA into EPA and DHA, Strict vegans that don't supplement actually get occasional higher values than regular fish eaters (at least 3 fat fish a week).. "Substantial differences in intakes and in sources of n–3 PUFAs existed between the dietary-habit groups, but the differences in status were smaller than expected, possibly because the precursor-product ratio was greater in non-fish-eaters than in fish-eaters, potentially indicating increased estimated conversion of ALA"https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/5/1040/4597496

"Several sources of information suggest that human beings evolved on a diet with a ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFA) of approximately 1 whereas in Western diets the ratio is 15/1-16.7/1. Western diets are deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, and have excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids compared with the diet on which human beings evolved and their genetic patterns were established. Excessive amounts of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and a very high omega-6/omega-3 ratio, as is found in today's Western diets, promote the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, whereas increased levels of omega-3 PUFA (a low omega-6/omega-3 ratio) exert suppressive effects. In the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a ratio of 4/1 was associated with a 70% decrease in total mortality. A ratio of 2.5/1 reduced rectal cell proliferation in patients with colorectal cancer, whereas a ratio of 4/1 with the same amount of omega-3 PUFA had no effect. The lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in women with breast cancer was associated with decreased risk. A ratio of 2-3/1 suppressed inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and a ratio of 5/1 had a beneficial effect on patients with asthma, whereas a ratio of 10/1 had adverse consequences. These studies indicate that the optimal ratio may vary with the disease under consideration. This is consistent with the fact that chronic diseases are multigenic and multifactorial. Therefore, it is quite possible that the therapeutic dose of omega-3 fatty acids will depend on the degree of severity of disease resulting from the genetic predisposition. A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of the chronic diseases of high prevalence in Western societies, as well as in the developing countries, that are being exported to the rest of the world."https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12442909 ^{— Unsigned, by: Jwaters123 / talk / contribs}

It used to at very least be less of a fawning endorsement; more "veganism is valid and can be workable" (which I doubt anyone would deny) than "veganism is universally optimal in every possible way." Then, a vegan came in and edited it into its current state, and was permitted to get away with it because he "had sources." And by "had sources," I mean "cited PCRM members." Xennial Dot Warner (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting edits User:Smerdis of Tlön

Vegans don't wanna boycott renewable resources, they want to boycott the meat industry. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Because the poor widdle animals are dying, and it's so so sad? Fact is, products like fur and leather do indeed fit the definition of 'renewable resources', the vegan substitutes are plastic cooked out of petroleum, and the only reason why anyone would prefer them is that they've developed an inappropriate sentimental attachment to the livestock. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, morality is just feefees. Blood is green and anyone who objects is just sentimental. We have to stop using plastics to save children - children are renewable, while our precious plastics are not. ^{— Unsigned, by: 31.11.141.223 / talk}

Calm the fuck down. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bible is an anti-vegan book

The Bible is a strongly anti-vegan book shouldn't this be mentioned?

Genesis 1:26- Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Hmm... Dominion... where have I heard that before?

And again in 1:28- And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 9:3- Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you” - clearly anti-vegan. The bible also puts humans above animals [1] for example "ye are of more value than many sparrows" Jonez (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I say more broadly it's a very pro-mistreat-animals book as well as how it promotes anti-environmentalism (I do believe it's a motivator for relentless environmental exploitation that plagued the U.S., see what happened to the Great Plains; the Bible also encouraged subjugation of Native Americans which also contributed to destroying their land and slaughtering the buffalo). --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There is further weirdness in the Bible about vegetarianism. We are told that before the Fall, every animal was a herbivore, even ones like tigers that obviously are not. "And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so." (Gen. 1:29-30). And at some point in the future, when the effects of sin have been undone, all of this will be brought back:

“”The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 11:6-9. This is the source of the imagery of the Peaceable Kingdom. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

For my part, I'm just waiting for the part where I can casually walk over lions and cobras. I don't get why anyone has aversions to eating meat, if anything organs are much easier to enjoy; except for brain (which, for all the smell when you cook it, is ridiculously bland) they require a lot less seasoning, and they're vastly cheaper than regular meat. Besides, The Big A is almost singlehandedlybresponsible for bringing about modern slaughterhouses, whatever the ancients came up with was certainly never as efficient as just hitting cows/sheep/goats/deer with a nail gun and slitting their throats to bleed out. It's easy to lower the ax or the hammer (I've done it and have no problem doing it again), why bother to pretend other animals have such scruples? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The brain is a good offal meat. Yes, it's bland, but it has a really good neutral flavor as well as a cream-cheese like texture, which makes it a good dish to season and it'll probably go well with other dishes due to its neutral flavor. It's a good hot pot ingredient, I do recommend it, but it's not exactly available at a Walmart. I don't understand aversion to offal meat, as tissue is just tissue, and the flavors of offal is very diverse, ranging from the beefy melt-in-mouth tendon that mimics the taste of expensive cuts to the rich taste of chitterlings to the velvety texture of tripe to the strong acquired metallic taste of liver. I recommend trying them all. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I am medically warned away from eating most offal; it aggravates my gout. I will make an exception for tripe and chitterlings; I am a sucker for a good pepper pot or menudo. I also eat pork rinds and cracklims. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure brain is good offal, but ever since I learned about prions, I've found myself overly paranoid about that sort of thing. I do enjoy garlic parmesan pork rinds though. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've actually had salt and vinegar pork rinds, which were surprisingly good. Menudo is excellent, though I've also been known to add chitterlings to my Susquehanna turkeys (it's a Pennsylvania Dutch-style stuffed hog maw). And, of course, I'll get haggis when I can, even though American haggis is a bit more liver heavy since you can't use lung here. Try to keep to eating that sort of thing a few times a year, but it's sure good when I do have it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

B12 food myth

The article contains this line "For other foods such as Marmite you would need to eat far more than the usual serving to meet your daily requirements. Nutritional yeast, a common flavoring used in vegan cooking, does not naturally contain B12 although it is often fortified with the vitamin".

The first line is not sourced and it is false. The second line is true but it leaves out the fact that fortified nutritional yeast is a good source of B12.

Fortified foods like non-dairy milks, vitamin drinks, cereals, spreads, marmite, yeast extract and nutritional yeast flakes available in a vegan diet that are fortified with B12 improves the absorption of the vitamin because it is not bound to protein. As this website notes "In most cases this form of fortified vegan-friendly B12 is not bound to protein, therefore it has a greater bio-availability (increased and easier rate of absorption through the gut lining), unlike animal based versions which rely more on the efficiency of digestive enzymes and hydrochloric acid in the stomach to break it down to a smaller component, allowing it to pass into the blood stream." [2] Depending on the size of serving, easily consuming two or three servings a day will provide adequate vitamin B12. You can do this with fortified drinks and food.

The absorption of B12 from fortified foods is also better than taking most B12 supplements and it is more digestible. Vitamin B12 deficiency was only a problem for vegans amongst the early days before the vitamin was discovered and understood. Modern research shows us that vegans are not deficient in B12. You can easily eat fortified foods and meet the recommended requirements. Ton (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The first line is mainly wrong because Marmite, like many yeast products, is fortified. Being primarily yeast extract it would have none on its own. As far as bioavailability is concerned, my understanding is that one should seem favor real actual foods if possible, even if it's possible that certain elements of fortified vitamins perform better... foods contain multiple chemicals beyond a simple vitamin after all. That's not to say there is any real issue for a vegan here, though, because eating fortified foods is way, way better than nothing, especially if the rest of your diet is sensibly non-processed and the like. And as far as I know B12 is the only real critical vitamin where there isn't a good plant-based alternative. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The article claims that Vitamin B12 cannot be obtained without fortification, which is true - most responsible vegan organisations say this, but you do hear some kooky natural-eating type vegans claim you don't need supplements or fortification (this article criticises them). For Marmite specifically that's a bit confusing and could be changed to say unfortified yeast extract. As for nutritional yeast, some but not all is fortified with B12 - products labelled "organic" typically aren't fortified[3] - so it's important to highlight that eating nooch will not necessarily provide B12. --Annanoon (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The RationalWiki article doesn't talk about iron but studies have found that most vegans are not actually deficient in iron but do generally have lower levels. There is a useful article here [4] which doesnt mention veganism but does cover which plant foods have iron. Vegans have to eat more iron than omnivores because heme-iron is only consumed in animal products and the type of iron found in plants (non-heme iron) is not as well absorbed but vitamin c increases the absorption rate and most vegans eat a lot of vitamin c foods. Fortified breakfast cereals contain the most amount of iron. 7499 (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

How to win an argument: abuse mod powers

Tired of being proven wrong? Make it impossible! ^{— Unsigned, by: 31.11.141.223 / talk} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

B12 and hair loss

Is there any data on this? Slappenkopf (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Iodine

I am guessing that most vegans take an iodine supplement but I have never of a vegan doing this and I looked these up and they are filled with heavy metals which is very bad. Most of the vegan or plant-based doctors on YouTube tell people to take a b12 supplement not any others. Iodine is found in dairy, fish, seafood and eggs [5]. The highest amount of iodine is found in seaweed such as kelp, nori, dulse, or arame but I have never come across a vegan eating seaweed. I am not saying they do not exist but most vegans are not doing this, so how are vegans getting their iodine? You can't buy kelp powder in mainstream shops or supermarkets, you can get it online or from health food stores. I have watched a lot of vegan YouTubers and none of them are putting seaweed powders into their smoothies. I would be interested in knowing where the average vegan gets their iodine from. It is recommended that adults consume 140 or 150 micrograms of iodine daily, pregnant women need around 220. Nobodyspecial (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I presume the supplements rather than the vegans are filled with heavy metals - but 'Food Health and Safety Regulations' would apply.

Possibly a search through 'Veganism journals and cookbooks' would answer the question. Anna Livia (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a vegan here, but I eat seaweed fairly often b/c my dashi powder is made of it. I would imagine that vegans eat more miso soup than the rest of us. I'm just allergic to fish, so the bonito versions are out. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 03:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobodyspecial most well-informed vegans either take an iodine supplement (or multivitamin) or they eat seaweed (marine algae) for example Michael Greger has an article on this [6]. Kelp is very high in iodine, for example Kombu kelp can contain up to 2,984 mcg of iodine per seaweed sheet (1 gram). This provides almost 2,000% of the recommended daily intake which is massive so Greger says not to risk taking kelp. Michael Greger says to take either 1 tablespoon of arame, 2 sheets of Nori, 1 tablespoon of dulse flakes, or 1 tablespoon of seaweed salad all of which will meet the daily nutritional requirements. It's very easy to get iodine on a vegan diet. Seaweed contains the most iodine of any food on the plant. AlecGargett vegan (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Iodine deficiency is a huge problem worldwide, even among non-vegans. Many coubtries have largely eliminated iodine deficiency with iodized salt[7]. --WantedFootprint (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and iodine supplements are expensive. Iodized salt is the cheapest and easiest thing to use. Wonder (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

DHA and EPA

This review found that "Modest consumption of fish (eg, 1-2 servings/wk), especially species higher in the n-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), reduces risk of coronary death by 36% (95% confidence interval, 20%-50%; P<.001) and total mortality by 17% (95% confidence interval, 0%-32%; P = .046) and may favorably affect other clinical outcomes." [8] but vegans do not eat fish.

Most vegans are not getting enough DHA or EPA, the only way for a vegan to get a suitable amount of DHA/EPA is from algae based supplements but most vegans are not taking them. There is some weird stuff going on in the vegan community at the moment over DHA/EPA for example Michael Klaper has said DHA supplements increase the risk of cancer. I have not seen any strong evidence to confirm that though. Bee (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've already grabbed the popcorn!🍿🍿🍿 Whoak (talk)

Hey @Andrew5, don't remove other people comments. The Community Standards clearly shows you are not allowed to remove other people comments. Whoak (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Check the explanation in the history, just a mistake. I know I've accidentally rolled stuff back that shouldn't have been. armed_roomba (she/her)^{What am I doing wrong this time?} 23:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will assume Andew5 did this in good faith. Whoak (talk)

Another misclick I did was here. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Could flax seeds, chia seeds, walnuts and other nuts make give vegans enough DHA/EPA? W235M (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No it isn't high enough, the conversion rate is very low. If you eat loads and loads of flax, chia and walnuts you are only going to get between 1 and 10% of EPA if you are male and only slightly higher for female. Most studies report between 2-8%. The conversion of DHA is very low, it's always around 0-2% in men, slightly higher in women. To make matters worse a diet rich in in n-6 PUFA can make the conversion rate even lower. For example a diet high in linoleic acid decreases the body's conversion of ALA to EPA [9] (it interferes with the desaturation and elongation of ALA) [10]. I have read elsewhere a high-fibre diet can also decrease ALA. Most vegans eat a very high fibre diet. The only way on a vegan diet to get a good amount of DHA and EPA is to take an algae supplement. Algae are the sources of the omega-3 fats in fish, so go straight to the source to get omega 3 is what some vegans say. So you could do well on a vegan diet of getting DHA/EPA but the algae supplements must be consumed. The problem is that nobody knows the long-term health effects of such supplements, but we could say this about most supplements. Some vegan doctors are now coming out against all supplements (apart from B12) claiming they all increase the risk of cancer. There are a lot of debates about all this in the vegan community right now. In conclusion it is a waste of time to eat loads of chia or flax on a vegan diet. You will not get the correct omega 3s, supplementing is essential. Bee (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The paper which claims fibre interferes with ALA conversion is here [11]. Obviously age is another important factor in regard to ALA conversion into DHA/EPA. This is why mainstream health agencies claim only a "well-planned" vegan diet is sustainable. You literally have to plan and read so much shit into the diet. If you want good health on a vegan diet it's not as simple as just giving up animal products and eating some baked beans on toast or soy products. It's definitely do-able, but serious planning needs to go into it. You have to learn about all the essential fatty acids and nutrients. A vegetarian or pescatarian diet is much easier, you can get away with doing much less planning. By adding some eggs or seafood to a plant-based diet you wouldn't need any planning or all the knowledge about essential fatty acids etc. You would meet all the nutritional requirements without supplementing and I believe this is why new diets have popped up like the "seagan" diet (vegan diet with seafood) or vegan diet with eggs (vegganism) in recent years, they are more practical and easy to consume long-term. Bee (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand you need DHA/EPA or there is a stronger risk of getting dementia in older age. The thing is this doesn't always happen, you could shoot me down and say I have just cherry-picked this name and it is anecdotal evidence but Donald Watson the man who coined the term vegan lived to be 95 and he was in good health until the end. He never take any supplements apart from b12. He didn't consume flaxseeds, chia or walnuts nor did complex planning with his food. His diet was very basic, grains like cereals and bread, fruits, vegetables, legumes (beans) and potatoes etc. This DHA/EPA thing is important but it is being used by anti-vegans in recent years as a scare tactic to scare vegans. Most westerners in general are not getting good amounts of DHA/EPA, I mean just look at the standard American diet. This idea to single out veganism for low DHA/EPA is a serious bias. 109.123.74.183 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You get DHA/EPA from just taking an algae oil supplement. They have done studies on this for example a good algae-oil supplement will provide equivalent DHA to a cooked piece of salmon [12] "These results indicate that algal-oil DHA capsules and cooked salmon appear to be bioequivalent in providing DHA to plasma and red blood cells". This has also been demonstrated in reviews [13]. I agree that flaxseed or chia seeds are not good substitutes for DHA, they only give ALA and a very poor conversion rate into DHA and EPA. It's easy to find algae supplements as there are now many for sale online. Non-vegans have no valid reason to kill and eat sea creatures. It's unnecessary. AlecGargett vegan (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

No reason to eat meat

We all know meat is bad for the environment, global warming and human health but more importantly to the ANIMALS. We are now in 2022 not sure why people are still eating meat. Consumption of meat causes many health problems [16] [17], [18], [19] including cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Instead of attacking veganism, RationalWiki should be supporting it. TotallyVegan (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it attacking veganism? Don't think so. BTW I wish there's some examination of the meat industry practices and how workers are overlooked. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@TotallyVegan Almost everything you eat has the potential of causing health issues, depending on amount, condition, combination, etc. As for why people eat meat, this can be varied. For most it's normalized, and seen as something of a luxury. Further, many people enjoy the taste, smell, and texture of meat. As for the ethics of meat consumption, I'm not really sure you have a case there. Production sure, but consumption? I just don't see it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's still a bit too focused on nutpicking, but it's not as bad as it was. I guess TotallyVegan may be talking about a different version of the article - there was a time when one or two pseuds kept constant watch over the article, ensuring it is as emotional and fallacious as possible, and reverting most improvements. You can see it in page's history, usually followed by making the page protected. It's not hard to see why someone seeing those "protected" versions would get the idea that RW is against veganism. --78.88.243.57 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No mention on the article about iron

"Approximately half of the iron in meat, fish, and poultry is heme iron. Depending on an individual's iron stores, 15% to 35% of heme iron is absorbed. Food contains more nonheme iron and, thus, it makes the larger contribution to the body's iron pool despite its lower absorption rate of 2% to 20%." [20]

"Heme iron is more easily absorbed by the body than non-heme iron. Therefore, vegans have to eat twice as much iron as meat-eaters to get the same amount" [21]. "Heme iron is pretty simple: you eat it, you absorb it. It’s not affected by the all the other food you are eating. However, there are many factors that affect the absorption of non-heme iron, so you have to be aware of the things you eat and drink that can inhibit non-heme iron absorption, such as coffee, milk and certain minerals that compete with iron for absorption". [22]

This is why studies have found that vegans have lower iron levels than omnivores [23] Vegetarians have a high prevalence of depleted iron stores. A higher proportion of vegetarians, compared to nonvegetarians, had iron deficiency anemia. This is especially true for premenopausal vegetarian women. 2456 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, a lot of that has been debunked. Vegetarian/Vegan diets are higher in vitamin C which increases non-heme iron absorption. "Vegetarians who eat a varied and well balanced diet are not at any greater risk of iron deficiency anaemia than non-vegetarians". [24] 138.68.164.177 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm going to be blunt here, I believe those were all the same person and that none of them were the real Alec Gargett. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Who even is Alec Gargett? --Andrew5 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 Some online vegan figure. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Ah ok. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You have to give reasons for removal so I can revise my edits, what kind of a “wiki” is this? That’s standard practice where it is not very clearly just a troll edit, on proper wikis.

The childish, misspelled, barely grammatical and more than a tiny bit ham-fisted “snark” of that section as it stands is permissible, but my slightly subtler and at least much better written countersnark, including providing some undeniably extremely important context in one place, gets removed?

Around issues like this accusations of bias will always go flying every which way. But you have to at least understand why people would have that perception --2607:FB90:B125:91E4:6059:B40A:2DF4:8332 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)