• Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don't give two shits about enviornmental measures, how is it by dietary measures?

    Oh, right:

    https://www.saintlukeskc.org/about/news/research-shows-vegan-diet-leads-nutritional-deficiencies-health-problems-plant-forward

    "avoiding all animal foods may lead to nutritional deficiencies in vitamin B12, omega-3, calcium, zinc, iron, magnesium, and high-quality protein.

    These deficiencies may be associated with increased risk for certain types of cancer, stroke, bone fractures, preterm birth, and failure to thrive. Avoiding consumption of animal-sourced food may also be related to higher rates of depression and anxiety. Hair loss, weak bones, muscle wasting, skin rashes, hypothyroidism, and anemia are other issues that have been observed in those strictly following a vegan diet."

    • Kayel@aussie.zone
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      • B12 is fed to animals. This is where the b12 comes from. Meat eaters are having their food supplemented also.

      • There are many plant foods rich in omega 3 fatty acids with good omega ratios. Such as flax, hemp seeds, and chia.

      • Minerals are common in plant foods, very common. For example, kidney beans and leafy greens.

      • The idea of vegans diets being deficient in protein is laughable and intentionally misleading. For example, beans on toast is a complete protein source.

      These articles are either aimed at college students, greatly misinformed, or shills for animal agriculture.--

      • Kayel@aussie.zone
        ·
        1 year ago

        As for the health aspects. For anyone with a genuine curiosity for an argument in good faith see https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0552-0

        Jordan's statement on health is very misleading.

    • dghgrdesxc@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ever heard of supplements? And if you eat nuts and seeds you knock most pf what you listed out of your needs diet wise.

  • kalipike@lemmy.one
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jeez what a title. I bet most folks read the title and assume it means better for health reasons not environmental reasons.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even better results can be achieved by unaliving yourself.

    Also in case anyone wanted to know without reading the paper they define "high" meat eaters as "(≥100 g d−1)" so I assume more then 100grams a day.

      • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think this is the right attitude to have (even if the oil spill would be worse then the oil delivered), the idea that you should take personal responsibility for environmental impact just glosses over how something like 4/5ths of all pollution is caused by large corporations manly in heavy industry. I don't think this is a bad paper, just a bit thin on core work (it was all survey based, and assumes impact from other studies).

        People should be aiming a bit higher to make the changes they are stating.

        • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree with you one hundred percent on the balance between corporate and individual responsibility (and that balance falling basically all the way on the corporate side), but I also think it helps to know just how much worse meat eating consumers are for the planet than vegan consumers so we know how thoroughly to blame the dairy and meat lobby, the advertising industry, the fast food industry, and anyone else who puts their thumb on the scale of what could be healthy consumption habits otherwise. Your observations on the methodology sound pretty reasonable too

          • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes I am on the same page mostly but this paper does not actually cover the impact of a vegan diet nor all the situations that can arise. There needs to be a lot more work on the large scale impacts of many diets to really get the best dialed in. I think the huge factory farms are the main issue, but what is not mentioned are the huge factory farms are not all raising meat and that depending on location the transportation impact is larger then the damage done when producing (think of bananas for example). I have worked on large cash cropping operations (canola, soy and some corn) and was frankly shocked at how little thought was put into any sort of environmental impact.

            In contrast I have a neighbor who turned an old abandoned property (less then 5 acres) into a small homestead for their family. They have some of trouble growing much of anything on that land (they had to bring in soil and build cold frames), but they have no issues grazing with their goats, sheep, chickens and one cow (whose name is Daisy and was raised like a dog). They seem to have drastically reduced the environmental impact of the family and may have even reduced below say a vegan living in a large metro center, but this would not work for most of the worlds population and is not scale able. I guess I just think more work has to be done to figure this out.

    • max@feddit.nl
      ·
      1 year ago

      That's the fun part. None, really. I still eat like a king, my meals might even be tastier nowadays.

      • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I actually have no problems with vegans or vegetarians. If you're doing it for your own reasons that great. If you're yelling at me that "meat is murder and chicken eggs are rape" then you're a crazy person.

        I just like the taste of meat, and the benefits of vegetarian or vegan diets are not worth the trouble right now. If plant alternatives price out eggs, then I'll switch. Until then, I'm just buying the best food I can afford.

        Edit: fixed "have to problems" to "have no peoblems"