|
|
|
|
|
|
by Daho0n
1916 days ago
|
|
|
Maybe but if most vegans are not healthy then eating vegan is at best "healthy if..." which isn't any better than keto or other diets. Eating vegan is great but just like other non-normal diets it requires bloodwork from a doctor regularly. >" Vegans showed a significantly lower mean serum iron level (p < .001) and vitamin B12 (p < .001). Wound diastasis was more frequent in vegans (p = .008). After 6 months, vegan patients had a higher modified SCAR score than omnivores (p < .001), showing the worst scar spread (p < .001), more frequent atrophic scars (p < .001), and worse overall impression (p < .001)." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32769530/ |
|
|
It's well documented that vegans, on average, live longer than omnivores (even controlling for exercise level, smoking, etc), and I don't think there's any evidence that vegans are more nutritionally deficient than omnivores - in fact, I think there's evidence for the opposite.[0] Though I agree that we preface diets with "healthy if..." I think the standard western diet is more in need of that prefix.
[0] "Mean intakes of fiber, vitamins A, C, and E, thiamin, riboflavin, folate, calcium, magnesium, and iron were higher for all vegetarians than for all nonvegetarians. Although vegetarian intakes of vitamin E, vitamin A, and magnesium exceeded that of nonvegetarians (8.3 ± 0.3 vs 7.0 ± 0.1 mg; 718 ± 28 vs 603 ± 10 μg; 322 ± 5 vs 281 ± 2 mg), both groups had intakes that were less than desired. The Healthy Eating Index score did not differ for all vegetarians compared to all nonvegetarians (50.5 ± 0.88 vs 50.1 ± 0.33, P = 0.6)." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21616194/