[slabity]

Where did I imply you need to 'meticulously record every meal'? I explicitly added the "inexperienced" tag to try to avoid this kind of extreme contrarian argument.

> major exception being vitamin b12 for vegans is something to be very careful about

Add to that list iodine, omega-3, zinc, iron, calcium, and vitamin D. All of these are essential nutrients that vegetarians need to include in their diet. Sure, they're easier to get than B12, but they can still be pitfalls if you're careless.

> Getting all essential amino acids is pretty easy if you eat like a sane person.

Yes. That's basically the entire point I'm making. Most vegetarians eat 'like a sane person' because if they don't then they will have issues very quickly. Having a diet with meat means you can eat more carelessly because you're less likely to have immediate issues compared to eating carelessly as a vegetarian.

What I'm asking for are studies that take this into account. Studies that aren't just asking people if their diet includes something. Studies that actually take into account the fact that most people that don't care what they are eating tend to eat meat.

[sdenton4]

Are vegetarians typically 'inexperienced' long enough to lose lifespan, though?

Fwiw, I've been vegetarian for like twenty years, don't really track much of anything in terms of vitamin intake, and am doing just fine according to the last time I had blood work done. I eat eggs and beans and rice for protein, and cook on a cast iron for iron... And that's the sum of my thought on vitamin intake. My partner takes b12 supplements, though.

I do think there's a certain over estimation of how hard it is to not eat meat. It's really not.

[slabity]

> Are vegetarians typically 'inexperienced' long enough to lose lifespan, though?

No, because they find out really quickly what they're deficient in when symptoms show up (or they revert back to their previous diet). I admit I worded that paragraph poorly though, that wasn't my intention.

> Fwiw, I've been vegetarian for like twenty years, don't really track much of anything in terms of vitamin intake, and am doing just fine according to the last time I had blood work done. I eat eggs and beans and rice for protein, and cook on a cast iron for iron... And that's the sum of my thought on vitamin intake. My partner takes b12 supplements, though.

So you get blood work done regularly, ensure you have certain things in your diet, and you intentionally try to make up for a common nutrient deficiency?

You may not see that as a lot of effort, but for people that don't really care about their health, every one of those things can make a significant difference in terms of lifespan.

[sdenton4]

I got blood work done once last year because it's a reasonable thing to do when you turn 40. Not regular at all, and I was feeling fine at the time.

I'm not sure why you're so invested in the idea that eating protein is hard when one doesn't eat meat. It's really not harder to eat other protein sources - eggs, rice, and beans are common foods. It's not a thing I think about, more a consequence of... eating.

Mostly in jest, let's turn this around:

Eating meat, by contrast, seems to require significant mental gymnastics to justify. The impossible cruelty of the industrial meat production system and massive environmental impacts of eating meat create a lot of cognitive dissonance, so people need to fabricate justifications for their decision to eat meat. I'm honestly not sure how you keep up your meat-eating lifestyle when you have to work so hard to create an argument not to be vegetarian, and defend your psyche from all the evidence of the moral bankruptcy of your food choices. It seems like it would create a lot of anxiety, which could be a factor in the reduced lifespan of meat eaters.

[slabity]

> I'm not sure why you're so invested in the idea that eating protein is hard when one doesn't eat meat.

I'm not sure why you're so invested in misrepresenting my argument. You're conflating my use of the word "effort" with some specific amount of difficulty. Would it be more accurate to use the word "willpower" instead? I personally do not believe changing any part of your diet is "hard". I have done it myself multiple times, and even now the only meat I eat regularly is fish on occasion.

The point I am making though, is that health studies don't ever seem to take into account that most people who don't put any willpower at all to have a healthy diet also tend to also eat meat. And to demonstrate that point further, here's a study on some amazing health benefits of a meat-only diet[1]. Notice how the reported health benefits are oddly similar to those that are common with vegan or vegetarian diets? My argument is that this is because this study also fails to take into account the type of people who don't put any effort into having a healthy diet (granted, at least this study acknowledges those shortcomings in their methodology as part of their conclusion).

I am not making an argument to not be vegetarian. Just as I am not making an argument to not be a carnivore. And I am certainly not trying to "defend my psyche" from being "morally bankrupt" or whatever that last paragraph of yours was suppose to be about. I honestly don't even know where you pulled that from.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684475/

[bawolff]

> Add to that list iodine, omega-3, zinc, iron, calcium, and vitamin D

Common nutrients that even non-vegetarians do not generally get from meat.

Iodine is usually from salt, Omega-3 is often vegetable oil and nuts, zinc is commonly in beans and grains, calcium and D3 is in milk (you said vegetarian not vegan), and more to the point, most people do not get vit D exclusively from diet.

These are all things that non-vegetarians get in sufficient quantity from non-meat sources. So why would someone becoming a vegetarian suddenly stop eating these things.

> Having a diet with meat means you can eat more carelessly because you're less likely to have immediate issues compared to eating carelessly as a vegetarian.

While i agree in general, your definition of "careless" is so ridiculous that I think meat eaters would rapidly be in trouble if they were this level of careless.

[slabity]

I want to preface this with the fact that I never said you can't have a well-balanced vegetarian or vegan diet, because I feel like that's what you're thinking I'm implying.

> Common nutrients that even non-vegetarians do not generally get from meat.

Other than Vitamin D3, meat is objectively an excellent source of all of those nutrients. Fish is an excellent source of iodine and omega-3, and saying people do not get zinc, iron, or calcium from meat is just incorrect.

> These are all things that non-vegetarians get in sufficient quantity from non-meat sources. So why would someone becoming a vegetarian suddenly stop eating these things.

Maybe because they never started eating those to begin with? I do not know, and I can only speculate on the different reasons. Each person is different, but all we know is that it does happen[1]. Some people just don't have those in their diet.

Anecdotally, I don't think I ever ate beans until I was in my early 20s because my parents just never cooked with them. We also pretty much only had sea salt available, and most of our food was cooked with butter instead of vegetable oil. We weren't unhealthy, but if I immediately dropped meat from my diet at that time without changing anything else, I would have started to have issues.

> While i agree in general, your definition of "careless" is so ridiculous that I think meat eaters would rapidly be in trouble if they were this level of careless.

I'm not going to argue semantics. My argument is about the statistics and how these dietary studies tend to fail to account for extremes in behavior. Vegans, vegetarians, and pescetarians are just less likely to have these extremes.

To reiterate the results from the previous study I linked[2], semi-vegetarians (people who only occasionally had meat) have a fairly worse mortality rate than vegetarians, yet strictly speaking their diet only varies by having meat once or twice a month. The only way this makes sense in my mind is either there's a huge behavior difference in these two groups (less care put into their diet), or that meat is so incredibly unhealthy that just eating it occasionally will knock years off your lifespan. Considering the standard deviation of those results are larger for both non-vegetarians and semi-vegetarians (and that pescetarians have a significantly lower mortality rate than even the vegan group), I would bet on the former.

And if you don't think there's a lot of people that are completely careless about their diets, just remember how much soda the average American drinks in a single day[3], despite half of the population not drinking soda at all. And nearly a quarter of Europeans don't get regular checkups at a doctor[4], despite their access to healthcare. It's safe to say that a lot of people that just flat out don't care if they have a balanced diet (or exercise, regular healthcare, etc), and when you don't care you tend to eat meat.

When we get health studies that don't take this into account, we end up with fad diets because those studies essentially just show that those who pay attention to their diet tend to be healthier. To demonstrate the issues with those studies, this one[5] concludes a meat-only diet has very good health benefits compared to the general population.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8746448/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/

[3] https://news.gallup.com/poll/156116/nearly-half-americans-dr...

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/D...

[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8684475/