Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Do angry vegans turn you against going vegan?

Closest thing I can think of isn’t
a mammal - I had alligator once.

There’s a lot of discussion on the net about why/whether/which meat eating animals taste bad.

Chickens will happily eat meaty things, given the opportunity. Mice, frogs, anything they can catch and swallow.
Not that many of them get the chance of course. I don't know if gangland corpses are still fed to pigs?

Anyway, just highlighting common food animals that eat unexpected things.
 
I don’t think it is either, but I’m not
100% sure that the people I know who have packed in veg*nism for health reasons are entirely down to dismissiveness from GPs.

Maybe a mix of the former, plus not eating quite right, personal constitution and circumstances, largely. I’m mindful that they guy who invented the tern veganism lived to 95, though.

I guess these things are easy to dismiss if you feel really good on it.
 
I don’t think it is either, but I’m not
100% sure that the people I know who have packed in veg*nism for health reasons are entirely down to dismissiveness from GPs.

Maybe a mix of the former, plus not eating quite right, personal constitution and circumstances, largely. I’m mindful that they guy who invented the tern veganism lived to 95, though.

I guess these things are easy to dismiss if you feel really good on it.
Bloke who invented pot noodle and ate virtually nothing but lived to 97.
 
I still haven't come to terms with Super Noodles having milk in.
Although the Sainsbury's own brand Chicken Flavour is a solid option.
 
I don’t think it is either, but I’m not
100% sure that the people I know who have packed in veg*nism for health reasons are entirely down to dismissiveness from GPs.

Maybe a mix of the former, plus not eating quite right, personal constitution and circumstances, largely. I’m mindful that they guy who invented the tern veganism lived to 95, though.

I guess these things are easy to dismiss if you feel really good on it.
tbh, one thing that nearly all animals know how to do better than us supposedly "clever" humans, they know how to eat. Modern folk appear to struggle with that quite a bit, and this might explain why there are so many "diet" failures. Vegans appear to be a bit more knowledgeable in this regard than most, however noobs transitioning over from a "normal" omni diet are more likely to fail if they don't use their noggin. (and a lot of people are quite lazy in this regard)

As far as nutrition advice from GP's goes, well my experience thus far has been that most of them don't really know what they are talking about wrt to nutrition, so I've learned not to automatically trust what they say on that subject without a spot of due diligence. Medical staff appear to be good at emergency and repair, but not so good at prevention.

wrt, longevity...you will always find somebody who drank and smoked all their life and lived to 100, not sure that means that it's a good idea to follow that example. Most of the stats appear to show that on the whole veg*ns have better overall health than other eating styles, however, even if for argument sake, it wasn't true and the health outcomes were exactly the same, veganism also has other advantages (notably environmental, ethical?) which imo makes it a good choice.
 
Ime dogs will eat whatever is put in front of them, and all manner of animals will eat very bad food if either out of their niche, overly hungry or exposed to human foodstuffs. Otherwise, most animals have much narrower diets than humans and have generally evolved towards their particular niche, as well as having been around a lot longer than humans.

Agree with you about medics and nutritional advice, though. There’s a tendency with GPs to recommend the simplest potential solution if presented with a veg*n experiencing vague malaise symptoms.

My argument with concluding too much about the health benefits of veganism, as I said before, was that while if you do it right you can get all your nutrients and are also likely to be dodging some toxins, it’s not easy to tease perceived health benefits apart from effects of strongly associated behaviour, much like how they found people eating breakfast to be healthier than people who skipped it (breakfast being the most important meal of the day was part of a cluster of health advice that people in this group were likely to be following).

Plus a larger variety of plant-based foods is likely to be good in itself.

Not arguing on environmental and ethical grounds that it is not better than the average diet, though.
 
Ime dogs will eat whatever is put in front of them, and all manner of animals will eat very bad food if either out of their niche, overly hungry or exposed to human foodstuffs. Otherwise, most animals have much narrower diets than humans and have generally evolved towards their particular niche, as well as having been around a lot longer than humans.
Well I'm not including domesticated animals as they're exposed to/affected by some of our crap habits and activities. Subject to availability, "wild" animals know what and how to eat and don't need scientists and chemical formulas to work what their optimum macro and micro nutrient ratios ought to be. For a variety of reasons, they mostly know what they're doing and a significant number of us haven't really got a clue, hence the increasing and crippling healthcare costs, a big chunk of which is associated with preventable diseases.

Agree with you about medics and nutritional advice, though. There’s a tendency with GPs to recommend the simplest potential solution if presented with a veg*n experiencing vague malaise symptoms.
In the few interactions I have had with medics on this subject they have been mostly clueless.

My argument with concluding too much about the health benefits of veganism, as I said before, was that while if you do it right you can get all your nutrients and are also likely to be dodging some toxins, it’s not easy to tease perceived health benefits apart from effects of strongly associated behaviour, much like how they found people eating breakfast to be healthier than people who skipped it (breakfast being the most important meal of the day was part of a cluster of health advice that people in this group were likely to be following).

Plus a larger variety of plant-based foods is likely to be good in itself.

Not arguing on environmental and ethical grounds that it is not better than the average diet, though.
I'm not sure one even needs to "tease the perceived health benefits apart". It's already common sense knowledge that an abundance of fresh fruit and veg is beneficial should make up a significant part of one's diet, that is a given. It is also widely known that saturated fat and cholesterol, predominantly from animal products, are play a significant role in the prevalence of mostly preventable diseases. So it should really be a no-brainer, especially when the other non-dietary benefits are factored in.

I realise that there is a lot of resistance to the ethical side of things and that a lot of people would rather not think about that side of things, however imo, it's an integral part and shouldn't really be separated. I do believe that it is wrong and immoral for us to kill animals for food when we have no need to do so.
 
Pay extortionate prices for a yoghurt and they still can't get it right?

Vegan yoghurts recalled after milk found
tbf, there are plenty of much more reasonably priced non-dairy yoghurts (and more expensive dairy ones). Contamination is always going to be a risk with mass produced processed foods, and is not something particularly unique to vegan foods. People with food allergies can also be affected by food contamination scares.
 
I'm not sure one even needs to "tease the perceived health benefits apart".

Well, it would be if you wanted a specific appraisal of any health differences between a vegan diet and, say, a diet with equivalent nutrients which is not entirely vegan (as opposed to, to give an extreme example, a good vegan diet vs a bad omni diet, or a good omni diet vs a vegan who lives on Pot Noodles). But then, comparing "like with like" in this case is going to be difficult. As you say, the vegans that do well on it tend to be better clued up on nutrition anyway.

It's already common sense knowledge that an abundance of fresh fruit and veg is beneficial should make up a significant part of one's diet, that is a given.

Abundance and variety. But yes, it's supported by good evidence as well as "common sense" (the latter of which can vary depending on who you're talking to).

It is also widely known that saturated fat and cholesterol, predominantly from animal products, are play a significant role in the prevalence of mostly preventable diseases.

The effect of dietary cholesterol and how it relates to blood cholesterol has changed a lot in recent years (hence the changes in advice on how many eggs can be eaten in a week). New research is shifting the consensus on the saturated fats front, too. There are other downsides to animal products in the diet, though (carcinogens in processed meat being one of several examples), and the Western diet is certainly too "meat heavy" in a way that doesn't happen from being too "veg heavy".

I realise that there is a lot of resistance to the ethical side of things and that a lot of people would rather not think about that side of things, however imo, it's an integral part and shouldn't really be separated. I do believe that it is wrong and immoral for us to kill animals for food when we have no need to do so.

What I meant by saying that I wasn't arguing wasn't that I didn't want to talk about it - just that I had no points of disagreement from your preceding post. I don't dispute environmental benefits generally speaking, and I have some sympathies with a lot of the ethical arguments.
 
tbf, there are plenty of much more reasonably priced non-dairy yoghurts (and more expensive dairy ones). Contamination is always going to be a risk with mass produced processed foods, and is not something particularly unique to vegan foods. People with food allergies can also be affected by food contamination scares.

Most of the weird stuff going on with food at the moment seems to involve meat. There's all that KFC business, plus other restaurants and chains having issues with supply due to recalls.
I think cracks in the regulatory systems are beginning to open up.
 
Well, it would be if you wanted a specific appraisal of any health differences between a vegan diet and, say, a diet with equivalent nutrients which is not entirely vegan (as opposed to, to give an extreme example, a good vegan diet vs a bad omni diet, or a good omni diet vs a vegan who lives on Pot Noodles). But then, comparing "like with like" in this case is going to be difficult. As you say, the vegans that do well on it tend to be better clued up on nutrition anyway.
I'm not sure there's much value to be had in trying to compare, at least not at an amateur level. Might be worthwhile for some sort of professional level research study. In my opinion, it's kind of moot anyway, when we already know that people can and do thrive on a vegan diet, and they can also do well on a non-vegan diet, comparing the worst vegan to the best non-vegan and vice versa wouldn't really yield much in the way of useful information. Regardless of what diet you are on, if you have any interest at all in your own health and well being and that of your loved ones, then imho, it would be wise to eat the highest quality of food that is practical for you and can meet your taste, health and moral/ethical requirements.

Those that claim to care about the wellbeing of animals should be able to meet their requirements with a vegan diet. Those that are happy to have animals killed and exploited will be able to meet their requirements with a non-vegan diet. I will maintain that I believe it to be wrong and unethical to kill animals for food when we don't need to.

Abundance and variety. But yes, it's supported by good evidence as well as "common sense" (the latter of which can vary depending on who you're talking to).
If you're living in the UK and even if you are on a fairly modest income, the majority of folk will have access to both abundance AND variety. The limiting factor is more likely to be knowledge and the lack of awareness (or lack of interest) in what is readily available and what they can do with it. I would suggest that for most people who are not living in abject poverty, I don't believe there are any good excuses for not eating reasonably healthily, be it veg*n or non-veg*n.

The effect of dietary cholesterol and how it relates to blood cholesterol has changed a lot in recent years (hence the changes in advice on how many eggs can be eaten in a week). New research is shifting the consensus on the saturated fats front, too. There are other downsides to animal products in the diet, though (carcinogens in processed meat being one of several examples), and the Western diet is certainly too "meat heavy" in a way that doesn't happen from being too "veg heavy".
I'm not a medical professional or nutrition scientist and don't claim any particular expertise in that area. There's always studies that say often conflicting things, however there is a general underlying pattern which shows fruit and veg to be largely beneficial and animal products to be more likely to be associated with health problems. At this moment in time (perhaps because of my current bias), I'm more inclined to believe PCRM medics (like Greger, Barnard, McDougall, Davis, Furhman, Novick, Popper) than the "low-carb" or "paleo" authorities (like Cordain, Taubes, Fallon, Minger). I like to think that I'm open minded and do listen to many sides of the argument for perspective. At this moment in time the vegan position makes the most sense to me.

What I meant by saying that I wasn't arguing wasn't that I didn't want to talk about it - just that I had no points of disagreement from your preceding post. I don't dispute environmental benefits generally speaking, and I have some sympathies with a lot of the ethical arguments.
I didn't mean to imply that it was you in particular that didn't want to discuss the ethics, however there does appear to be a fair amount of resistance from some of the more adamant meat eaters in this thread, which is perhaps a reaction to their belief that they are being made to feel guilty for being ok with animals being killed on their behalf.
 
Last edited:
I didn't mean anyone was likely to tease apart various health effects in a non-professional capacity, just that it's very hard to do (including in a professional capacity, as previous errors have shown). I'm not a low-carb or paleo aficionado myself, I think there are a lot of flaws in the thinking behind it. Though I do think reducing refined sugar is a good idea for a lot of people (it certainly helps me feel better). I try to follow a high protein, medium fat, medium carb diet generally, with a focus on healthy fats and carbs (vegetables being as healthy as carbs get imo).

I get what you mean about a lack of interest by people in what they eat. There also seems to be an extent to which many people use food to 'self-medicate' in unproductive ways too, which the food industry is all to happy to pander to. Plus a lot of people are quite pushed for time, so making changes isn't going to be their highest priority. I know I tend to go off track when busy with other stuff.

I'm not familiar with the PCRM lot, but their Wikipedia entry makes me a little sceptical about them. Though lot of the info on them is quite old tbf.
 
I didn't mean anyone was likely to tease apart various health effects in a non-professional capacity, just that it's very hard to do (including in a professional capacity, as previous errors have shown).
Indeed, and the point I was trying to make is that even if it was relatively easy to do, there's not much value to such a comparison given that it has already been observed that people can do well on both veg and non-veg diets, and can also do poorly on either. There are just too many variables involved imo, although it might be worth making a not of what those that are the most successful do and learn from them, that might be a worthwhile research study.

I'm not a low-carb or paleo aficionado myself, I think there are a lot of flaws in the thinking behind it. Though I do think reducing refined sugar is a good idea for a lot of people (it certainly helps me feel better). I try to follow a high protein, medium fat, medium carb diet generally, with a focus on healthy fats and carbs (vegetables being as healthy as carbs get imo).
Following on from what I was saying about animals not needing a chemistry degree to work out what to eat, I think the whole categorising foods by their macronutrients is a bit of a nonsense tbh, although it's currently very fashionable. I've never paid any particular attention to them and as yet I've not seen a compelling reason why I should do and what all the fuss is about. I agree that refined sugar isn't a good idea, but then I don't consider refined sugar to be a proper food. Similarly, with refined fats (ie oils, butters, and cheese), imo they are not really proper foods and should only be had in moderation.

One of the benefits of eating predominantly whole foods is that they have more of an in built self regulation system, which makes it much harder to overeat whole foods. For example, most people can eat perhaps 3 or 4 apples in one sitting and then not be able to eat any more, however they will be able to down more than 4 apples worth of "refined and processed" apple juice quite easily, with it's more concentrated sugar and minus the balancing fibre. That principle applies to other foods resulting in us over consuming processed foods which our bodies cannot deal with properly, and causes of many of the dietary problems that a lot of folks have.

I get what you mean about a lack of interest by people in what they eat. There also seems to be an extent to which many people use food to 'self-medicate' in unproductive ways too, which the food industry is all to happy to pander to. Plus a lot of people are quite pushed for time, so making changes isn't going to be their highest priority. I know I tend to go off track when busy with other stuff.
Yeah, the time thing, it's just another poor excuse I'm afraid. Health is important enough to invest ones time in, and in the long run is a time saver if you invest wisely. Unfortunately there is a widespread ignorance lack of wisdom in this area and most people don't pay enough attention to health until they get sick. imo everyone should have a good understanding of diet and nutrition and that should be the foundation upon which they build their health. The problem is, when the people we regard as authorities and rely on for health advice (ie the medics) know so little themselves about diet and nutrition, it's not surprising that so many of us regular punters struggle and fail with our diets and get it wrong so often.

I'm not familiar with the PCRM lot, but their Wikipedia entry makes me a little sceptical about them. Though lot of the info on them is quite old tbf.
lol @ "their wikipedia entry". Well hopefully you'd do a bit more than quick glance at notoriously unreliable wikipedia entries before drawing conclusions. I've been familiar with them and their work for a nearly 20 years and I'm still learning new stuff regularly from them. I have a high regard for Dr Greger, Dr McDougall and Dr Barnard. In particular, Dr Gregers' Nutritionfacts.org is a great resource imo. I've also referred to Dr Garth Davis' book "Proteinaholic", a doctor who used to recommend high protein/low carb diets to his patients, but now no longer does so.

It does take time to properly research this sort of stuff, and most people cba and would rather go for quick easy to digest little soundbites.
 
Well I'm not including domesticated animals as they're exposed to/affected by some of our crap habits and activities. Subject to availability, "wild" animals know what and how to eat and don't need scientists and chemical formulas to work what their optimum macro and micro nutrient ratios ought to be. For a variety of reasons, they mostly know what they're doing and a significant number of us haven't really got a clue, hence the increasing and crippling healthcare costs, a big chunk of which is associated with preventable diseases.

In the few interactions I have had with medics on this subject they have been mostly clueless.

I'm not sure one even needs to "tease the perceived health benefits apart". It's already common sense knowledge that an abundance of fresh fruit and veg is beneficial should make up a significant part of one's diet, that is a given. It is also widely known that saturated fat and cholesterol, predominantly from animal products, are play a significant role in the prevalence of mostly preventable diseases. So it should really be a no-brainer, especially when the other non-dietary benefits are factored in.

I realise that there is a lot of resistance to the ethical side of things and that a lot of people would rather not think about that side of things, however imo, it's an integral part and shouldn't really be separated. I do believe that it is wrong and immoral for us to kill animals for food when we have no need to do so.

The main problem is not with us not knowing what to eat and animals being much wiser but in that the range of food on offer to people is vastly different to what it started off as. It's all highly processed to fuck.

The human brain craves sweet things as well,a legacy from our primate days, now we can get it whenever we want in the form of chocolate or sweets. We also want fats as that's where a lot of the energy is stored and about what we could get as we first started hunting or rather scavenging.

If foxes were sentient they'd make our fried chicken habits look amateur by comparison though.
 
The main problem is not with us not knowing what to eat and animals being much wiser but in that the range of food on offer to people is vastly different to what it started off as. It's all highly processed to fuck.
Indeed, a lot of processed crap, which passes for "food". My contention is that it isn't really food at all, and should be eaten once in a while at best or to tide us over in times of shortage. Unfortunately a lot of these "non-foods" have become staples, and we've replaced infectious diseases and stomach parasites with more exotic heart disease, cancer, stroke and diabetes.

The human brain craves sweet things as well,a legacy from our primate days, now we can get it whenever we want in the form of chocolate or sweets. We also want fats as that's where a lot of the energy is stored and about what we could get as we first started hunting or rather scavenging.
All of that may well be true, however tricking our bodies with refined and processed rubbish is a recipe for disaster.

If foxes were sentient they'd make our fried chicken habits look amateur by comparison though.
Maybe you have a different understanding of what sentience is. Animals that live in close proximity to us humans will take any easy pickings available, and we give rodents, foxes, pigeons and seagulls plenty of opportunities. Let me know when a fox opens up a KFC and lights up the deep fat frier, coats the chicken breast in the Colonels secret recipe batter and fries it for 7.5 minutes, that might just go viral on youtube.
 
If stomach parasites are so clever at adapting, how come they're hiding themselves in piles of fox shit or whatever instead of Big Macs?

I've heard mucky d's kitchens get cleaned regularly. Not saying it's a fact, just what I've heard.

As for animals eating what they've evolved to eat, well humans are animals too and we also eat what we've evolved to eat, that is everything (omnivorism) including fruits/vegetables, roots, seeds, leaves, fungi, milk, eggs, meat and fish. Humans are lucky to be able to eat so much, it's one of the main reasons for our evolutionary success.

Some individuals exclude certain foods and get by and that's no disadvantage in a culture where a varied and fresh food supply (or well preserved by freezing, canning, drying, sugaring, salting, pickling or fermentation) is well assured.
 
Last edited:
If stomach parasites are so clever at adapting, how come they're hiding themselves in piles of fox shit or whatever instead of Big Macs?

Because parasitism as a lifestyle tends to reduce motility over an evolutionary timescale? No point growing legs if you're planning to spend your whole life up a badger's arsehole getting him to do all the wandering-around-finding-food for you. Not much point growing a brain either, hence why it never occurs to an intestinal parasite to try its luck at a popular fast food outlet rather than simply laying a bunch of eggs which will then get shat out in the woods somewhere.

Also those intestinal parasites that do have the resources and wherewithal to get up and move to towns and cities tend to become letting agents rather than burger-flippers.
 
Because parasitism as a lifestyle tends to reduce motility over an evolutionary timescale? No point growing legs if you're planning to spend your whole life up a badger's arsehole getting him to do all the wandering-around-finding-food for you. Not much point growing a brain either, hence why it never occurs to an intestinal parasite to try its luck at a popular fast food outlet rather than simply laying a bunch of eggs which will then get shat out in the woods somewhere.

Also those intestinal parasites that do have the resources and wherewithal to get up and move to towns and cities tend to become letting agents rather than burger-flippers.

Just the phrasing of this post made me LOL. Nicely written.
 
Humans are omnivores – 29:31

"...well some people contest that, but even if it's true, it doesn't justify eating animals. We can get our nutrients from plants. If a carnivorous species reached our level of sentience it would also have the moral obligation to develop food which does not require murder. Again, nothing about the presumed "naturality" of eating animals justifies it morally to an intelligent modern species with alternatives available."
 
Back
Top Bottom