oscillateur wrote:I can't comment that much about strict vegan stuff but I've been a vegetarian for more than 15 years, I get pretty full health check-ups for work including blood tests, etc. every year (as does everyone working in Japan) and I have no deficiencies whatsoever. And I don't take any supplement. I just eat good stuff, avoid junk food, etc. As I said, I'm not a vegan so I do eat milk-based products (I'm french, I need cheese) and eggs. But no fish/meat/seafood/etc.
So yeah, tabbycat's post does contain bits of truth but it also contains a sizeable amount of bullshit...
hey oscillateur, a vague and dismissive thing to say re 'bullshit'. best to be specific if there's a point you take issue with.
the thread title and op's original comment was about going vegan (giving up all animal and animal derived products), which is what i was addressing.
a vegetarian who consumes milk and eggs (animal products) will be healthier than a vegan. and the reason why they will be healthier is because they are consuming more animal products. your eggs and milk will provide good quality protein (no issues with complete and incomplete proteins, non-animal-product-consuming dieters have to combine foods to achieve a decent complete protein intake), easy to assimilate (animal origin) iron and calcium also choline, (some, though maybe not enough) easily assimilable best (dha-type) omega 3 in the eggs. all of these absent from a vegan diet, yet all essential for optimum health. that was my point.
the fact you are supplementing your vegan (for all intents and purposes) diet with animal products would suggest you accept my argument (for not giving up animal products) in your actions, while dismissing it in concept (the 'bullshit' comment).
a vegatarian who consumes eggs and milk will always be better nourished than a vegan.
furthermore, in my opinion, based on all i've read (and have read considerably on the subject), if you added regular intake of high quality omega 3 rich fish to your diet, and occasional high quality organic lean red meat, you would be healthier still.
we agree on the first bit (as your diet indicates) and disagree on the second. we can agree to disagree.
i'm a pescatarian, eat eggs (and cheese rarely). i know all about the french cheese thing. i lived near marseille for six months and it was served at pretty much every sit down meal. the mediterranean diet is recognised as being a superb diet to aspire to. includes lots of seafood, high quality meat, eggs, milk, etc. people live long and healthy lives there.
japanese eat a great diet too. again lots of seafood, greens (marine and land, i wish good seaweed was easier to get in the west), beans, some eggs. you're in the right place to eat well. i use unpasturised brown rice soya miso on a daily basis.
D.o.S. wrote:Maybe I've missed something -- why are we ignoring the moral and ecological/economic arguments?
as to why i'm a pescatarian, it's partly ethical and eco. not ok with the way most (land living) meat is produced and processed. if i were to go back to small quantities (one or twice a week) of red meat (best quality iron and b vits) it would be via organic free-range game. but the reason i don't is the same reason i tried vegetarianism and veganism in the first place. i feel a bit awkward about the moral side of it. while i can be confident about the valid scientific basis underlying the physiological argument for retaining animal products in the human diet, morally i'm fudging it. which is why i put the disclaimer about that side of it right at the start of my original comment, before all else in fact. as it's a big part of the broader issue. but one which you can separate out if you want to make a specific physiological point, as i was doing.
i love animals so the idea of killing them for food troubles my conscience. so the pescatarianism is a fudge of kinds, based on the reality that of all meat, fish live the most uncompromised and natural (absolutely 'free-range') of lives prior to being caught (game being the other, which is why i mentioned that as a red meat option i would consider).
the killing of fish to eat is still on my conscience, but i accept that (with unease) as an inevitable consequence of being the species i am, with that dictating the fundamental dietary needs i have.
so that's where i am with the moral side of it. a best compromise situation.
that's open to criticism and debate while the scientific fact re the known shortcomings of a vegan diet is not really.
