Ufostrahlen said:
Synkromystic said:
And this desire is no longer based on necessity, where as hundreds of years ago, it was nearly impossible to be a vegan, unless you were in India or South America. Although, the Jain Tradition is a fascinating one!!!
True that, I would say that even before the arrival of the internet (~1995) it was hard to be a vegetarian or vegan, because where would you get your information from? From the nutritionists?
They'd tell you that a little meat won't hurt. From the doctors? Part of the patients recovery meals in clinics is still meat. Or from the hippie community, experimenting with esoteric knowledge, probably leading to deficiencies?
All the supplements needed to make this lifestyle easier weren't around 20 years ago or were insanely expensive. Creatine? Soy isolate? DHA, EPA? This stuff wasn't really around, especially in Europe. The US is more advanced in this field, so you may have it easier there.
But now it's affordable and you have scientific opinions like these:
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that
appropriately
planned vegetarian diets,
including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are
healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
Well-planned vegetarian diets
are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is the United States' largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, with close to 72,000 members. After nearly 100 years as the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the organization officially changed its name to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (A.N.D.) in 2012.[2] The organization’s members are primarily registered dietitian nutritionists (RDs or RDNs) and dietetic technicians as well as many researchers, educators, students, nurses, physicians, pharmacists, clinical and community dietetics professionals, consultants and food service managers.[3]
en.wikipedia.org
I mean, what proof do people need, if it weren't from professionals?
But agreed, change takes time, proper (!) knowledge must be acquired and certain vegan lifestyles may need $500 per month on the food/supplement bill. Not so easy, I'm still not vegan, it may take me another 10 or 20 years.
Thank you for this.
On another note, people here seem to argue for the sake of arguing, leading to no learning, no understanding, and only more arguing.
It is not the year 50. It is not the year 1980. It is the year 2015.
Some people have $500 / month for food. Or $5000. Not that I need anywhere near that to be a vegan where I live. B12? I have thousands of edible mushrooms (thank you roninsina for reminding me that mushrooms have b12!) growing all around me, I simply have to walk out my door (at least a little later in autumn when they're in season). Protein? I have hundreds of edible wild plants growing all around me that are 20-40% protein by dry weight (including most of the essential amino acids.) All I have to do is pick them. That's $0 for adequate protein and b12 from natural sources.
Instead, I started with fruits that I had to pay money for for personal reasons (it was easier for me to change my diet by starting with fruits.

)
Berries are free for me, apples as well. I'm still eating frozen berries from last year, there was about 1 ton of them originally. (that's 2200 lbs of berries/year. $0 for me. No toxic pesticides, full of vitamins.)
You (not you, Ufostrahlen, but anyone) cannot assume things about someone's level of financial security, their circumstances or their level of knowledge on nutrition on metabolism and then base your arguments around those assumptions. That's called circular logic. Your arguments and conclusions will apply to
someone out there, but don't expect it to be the person you're wanting to argue against, unless you have
divine knowledge of that person's circumstances.
It's true that it's exceptionally easy for me to be a raw vegan and get all the protein, vitamins and minerals I need. It's also true that that's not what I'm at the moment because
I'm still in the process of transitioning and seeing what works for me. That doesn't mean your "average person" can't become a healthy vegan. It just means that they have to do the research, see what's available in their region, see what they can afford, and make the best possible choices they can.
Ps. I'm not saying anyone should become a (raw/mostly raw) vegan. I'm saying
if someone wants to do that, they can do the research and do what they can with the resources they have under their personal circumstances. That's true for any person and any diet
Before the last 2-3 pages of comments were posted, I read
this piece on fruitarianism. Look at the author of that website: he is no raw vegan.
I look for information from many sources and compare the information and try to find out what's true. I have read every word on that website regarding vegan, vegetarian and fruitarian diets. There's pages upon pages upon pages of debunking of raw vegan diet related misconceptions backed with scientific reasoning, far more than you have even begun to touch here. (Not you, Ufostrahlen, this is to everyone participating in this thread.) Just a little perspective
I'm a vegan. 75% raw vegan, there's only 1 food I cook (potatoes) and that is if I eat it. I started by eating only fruits and I still have fruits-only days. I don't read vegan/fruitarian sites exclusively or even mostly to get my nutritional information. Assuming someone's level of interest, research or knowledge based on a label they adopted out of convenience, not loyalty, is in no way scientific or fact-based but simply presumptuous.
I hope that offered some perspective
The status quo is based on a diet people have been eating for hundreds of years, with the science built around it to support it. Does that sound like how science is supposed to work? First the conclusion ("meat and milk are necessary"), then the evidence to support it, no matter how shoddy and open to intepretation? That might be one way to do science, but it's probably not the best way. If you want to defend science then don't defend bad protocol. If you start with a conclusion and refuse to accept any other conclusion than the one you started with, discarding and accepting evidence accordingly, then the conclusion is not a hypotheses, it is the Absolute Truth.
Any study that compares a group of people eating meat-based protein with a group of people not eating any protein but
has no control group of people eating the same amount of non-animal based protein is
worthless in stating anything about the necessity of meat. They can only prove the necessity of protein in a diet.
Think of it this way: there is no past, no future, no present. There is only now and in the now you are claiming that people cannot thrive without eating meat, dairy and animal eggs. Correct? If this is your claim then please prove it. If you cannot, it's not going to be taken as a fact no matter how loud and aggressive you get in your arguments.

It's going to be taken as your opinion.
Your "Status quo" argument is a not-so-clever way of making an argumentum ad populum, where you pretend like there's an overhwhelming scientific concensus on that "one true way to eat healthy" and it is the popular opinion of your cultural context/your opinion. That's simply not true.
Don't mistake politics backed up with cherry-picked/biased science (the USDA food pyramid for example) for science.
SHroomtroll said:
Ive found out through many years of research how to eat in the best possible way for me.
This is what everyone needs to do, not copy my style of eating or anything.
That's what I'm doing. I'm reading about nutrition, both things that support my diet and things that argue against it. I'm finding out things for myself, changing my diet to see what works for me and trying to find the best way to go.
Ps. I have never in my life (as far as I'm aware of) eaten 100g, 70g or even 50g of protein per day. Should I start eating that much protein
for the first time in my life because it works for you?

Probably not.
There is no one-size-fits all. Read: your diet is not a magical diet that is the best diet for everyone.
roninsina said:
Just to add a personal anecdote. The two separate, year long periods I spent as a raw vegan were the most perceptibly healthy periods of my life. My mental acuity, especially short term memory, was markedly superior with sharp increase before and a slow decline after these periods. I work an extremely physically challenging job and found the energy to work out after a full shift, most frequently choosing to bicycle thirty miles or more and punctuated by windsprints up 22 flights of stairs. During the first year long period, I spent about three months as a fruitarian with my only 'supplement' being dried kelp. I had days where I was satisfied with only a piece or two of sweet fruit as there was a perceptible saturation of nutrients in my blood from meals of previous days. The associated states of consciousness alone, made this fruitarian period completely worth my time but I would only consider that a beneficial side effect.
The second period was an attempt to organize a raw cooperative home (the diet can be somewhat socially alienating). We ate less straight produce and more of the faddy 'gourmet raw' sort of a diet with abundant mixes of ingredients (I even made a raw 'hamburger' with raw-b-que sauce) . Not quite the benefits of my previous experience but subjectively, far superior health to what I've ever experienced otherwise. Both periods being marked by a long standing cavity along the gum line of my wisdom tooth filling with pulp and hardening for long enough to avoid unnecessary dentistry for a few years.
Though I was convinced at the time that this was the best lifestyle for everyone and I laughed at ideas like Ablood types being suited to vegetarianism and Otypes to meat based diets, I came to learn that some people could suffer, either regardless of or possibly because of it. One of my house brothers lost his substantial body fat at such a rapid rate that he acquired gall stones as a result. Another woman I know through friends has suffered cardiovascular issues and high cholesterol despite decades of veganism, raw or otherwise.
I know there are the poster child straw men who are completely unaware of the protein and b12 in mushrooms and in microorganism based supplements. Of how to combine vegetable based amino acids if they feel their body is in need of protein. Of how to cleanse the villi of plaque and matted gluten to dramatically increase bioavailability. Of when to quit if/when their body starts to tell them it's simply not going to work for them. These folks are not good arguments against the lifestyle IMO as I would speculate many are likely to suffer under most conditions where they are responsible for their own diets.
I would echo the sentiments of others in this thread and say to experiment until you find what's right for you. If you feel you are suffering as a result of a lack of animal based protein then, by all means, pursue that no matter what others may think. If you want to mono-diet on watermelon for a week before fasting for another week because it makes you feel like a million bucks, then that's really nobodies business but your own, as well.
Please accept my apologies for a slow response to any comments on this post as I will be internet free for a short and joyous period.
Thank you for sharing your experience and speaking with wisdom. I agree 100%

Some people thrive on diets that make others sick. Meat or vegan, it doesn't matter, what matters is what your body is able to use to thrive and stay healthy. Not someone else's body, just your own.
