Support NeoGAF

[Raven Prime]

There's plenty to support a vegan diet, it's not made of exotic things, it's made of removing many things. I don't really buy that argument. It's a matter of the person having the education to support it, get supplements, talk to a doctor and know how to create a balanced meal (and follow through). The problem is people like food trends and they like things that have simple rules that present themselves as healthy. Very few people need, say, gluten free diets but that doesn't stop the bandwagon effect. Even ethical eaters might be prone to not getting enough nutrition because again, they don't think about it, they think a vegetable heavy diet must be healthy and it's for a good cause.

In the end it's a mindset people latch on to, often for not so good reasons. I don't think we should do away with it (personal freedom and all that) but perhaps people need to be made more aware of what that entails and why nutrition is perhaps more important than weight, and personal ethics should be just that, personal and not enforced on children, pets or anything else.

Ethics are at the basis of society. It's impossible to not share your ethical views with your children. In fact I think it's very strange and hypocritical if you don't do this. If you think it's wrong to kill and/or exploit animals, you shouldn't make your kid eat butchered animals or products derived from their exploitation. Seems very simple and coherent to me.

As for nutrition, many people make lots of poor choices when it comes to nutrition. Animal products by themselves often are a poor choice when it comes to health. But rather than becoming deficient by eating them, you tend to get a lot of what you don't need. The problems involved with consuming them tend to be slow to appear, but very lethal when they develop.

All I'm saying is that, in a vegan world a lot of these things would be common sense and more importantly doctors and nutritionists would know how to deal with the 'risks'. I think that in general many vegans are very aware of what to eat and what not. But sadly there are always those that neglect common sense or indeed just jump on the vegan hype train. I've come across some vegans that are convinced they don't have to supplement B12 or even eat products fortified with them. But for every vegan like that, there are dozens of parents that will drink and/or smoke during pregrancy and/or will feed their toddlers junkfood.

 

[captive]

New dad here. An 11 month old that can't sit up or crawl is extremely sad to me.
My son, ten months old is on the verge of walking by himself, been crawling for months.

He loves meat, gets a big grin on his face when we give him my BBQ or other cooked meats.

But what's interesting to me is how breast milk, which is the perfect food for infants, becomes lacking in nutrients if the mother is malnourished too.

Its not interesting it all, its a fact. Breast milk provides what it gets form the mothers body, pretty plain and simple. If the mother eats a lot of spicy food, the milk is spicy. This is also why moms have to be careful about when and how much alcohol they drink when breast feeding.

So a malnourished vegan, that's breast feeding isn't giving their child all the nutrients that they need.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

At the same time, though, you have to question why humans are the only animals to drink milk from a different animal, too.

Oh wow, hadn't heard this thing in a while. I hope you aren't actually using this "fact" as an argument for... anything.

If you don't see the people constantly dismissing or putting down vegans for their choices, that's not on vegans.

"Bacon on everything" culture and "no meat, where do you get your protein lol" people are way louder and more obnoxious than any vegans I've ever known.

Those are dumb and obnoxious, sure, but there's also plenty of sanctimonious vegans too (like calling people "carnists"... lol).

Don't worry, there will be more chances to understand them; they will never stop vehemently explaining their lifestyle to you.

Oh snap

I'm happy my posts put a smile on your face. But beyond that it's all very debatable.

Um, yeah. That's why I'm debating your claim that "vegan can enjoy pretty much every product that a carnist can.". That might be true for you, but you don't speak for all "carnists" (obviously). It's a ridiculous statement. No combinations or herbs or sauces can replicate sushi or filet mignon.

There's nothing wrong with having a limited diet for whatever reason. I don't care about anyone's personal choices. Claiming that a very obviously limited diet is not limited is just silly, however.

You are thereby mocking yourself

Damn, you got me good.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Ancedotal:

My mother was a vegan for years before having children, breastfed all of her 7 kids for about 1 year each, we were all perfectly healthy.

Vegan diets are fine if done well.

 

[God Dayumm]

then they're not a vegetarian, do you think a fish is a plant?

They do not belong to the Tetrapoda class so they count as vegetables.

 

[ricki42]

In the end it's a mindset people latch on to, often for not so good reasons. I don't think we should do away with it (personal freedom and all that) but perhaps people need to be made more aware of what that entails and why nutrition is perhaps more important than weight, and personal ethics should be just that, personal and not enforced on children, pets or anything else.

Every parent forces their ethics on their child(ren). If a parent gives their child meat to eat, they tell the child eating meat is OK and ethical. It's just that if that happens to be your (personal) view as well, you don't perceive it as such. Parents also decide what movies their kid watches (talking young children here) or what books they read to the child. All of these things influence the child.

 

[happypup]

Nothing wrong with being vegan or vegetarian or whatever and having and raising a child. The problem here is that they didn't discuss any of this with their pediatrician.

This should not have gotten this bad. That is what baby doctors are for. to deal with the development of children.

I can only assume they weren't getting their kid into the doctor for regular checkups.

Else this would have been dealt with far sooner than 11 months and not even crawling.

 

[ValkyrUser]

I swear I remember a similar scenario in an episode of House MD.

 

[entremet]

If you're going to talk about vegetarianism. At least take the time find out what it actually means.

It's not semantics, it's you being ignorant to what a vegetarian is and isn't, and if your ignorance is what you bring to the discussion you're not worth my brain cells

I get it. But I totally understand veganism and vegetarianism. I misspoke. Do you seriously think that I think fish are vegetables?

It's a silly rejoinder.

 

[happypup]

It's simply a classification, a label we project unto the world. Our ancestors of a few million years ago were herbivores, and our bodies are still largely similar to them, just as we are still quite similar to other Great Apes. Whilst we did adapt to the consumption of animal foods, this was to aid general survivability, but perhaps was never ideal.
.

Sorry Raven that simply isn't true. First though you are correct the classifications are undoubtedly human projections as nothing fits so neatly into th little boxes we give them.

Many herbivores supplement their diet with meat when available.

In fact, being a plant predator is the derived state for all vertebrates. Simply put vertebrates lack the necessary biochemical pathways to deal with plant biomass.

Now millions of years of evolution and close symbiotic relations with bacteria and fungus living in our guts has made us more capable, and plants have themselves formed incentives for eating certain parts of them, but eating plants is still the derived and not the intrinsic method for obtaining energy.

our ancestors began the path to herbivory millions of years ago, when we were still predominantly insectivores. Now at least seven million years a predominantly meat free diet was found only in specialist hominids, and those most similar were increasing meat intake rapidly.

What does this have to do with anything today. Nothing. We can easily survive on a meatless diet, have the resources and the technology to help us transition, and we will, in the end, be far better off for it.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

I mean, if you're just going to be dismissive and drop links...

http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savo...eserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en

Why not have compassion? What's a life, a brain, an existence.. a meal.

I do get eating meat (albeit something I could never do). But not having empathy I find a little odd.

It has nothing to do with lacking empathy. No matter what you eat, you have to kill to get it. I can totally get behind not supporting industrial farming and the terrible conditions it puts animals in, though.

Killing animals however will always involve suffering in one shape or form. And even if it wouldn't, it would still give rise to problems like animal ownership and the encroachment on their rights and freedoms.

And the alternative for many animals is to simply not exist in the first place or be slaughtered by other predators.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Not everyone is a vegan expert. Some people live their entire lives eating what they pull off the shelves. Some people don't know what the body needs or they feed their kids what they see at the store. When I see someone mention terms and stuff it reminds me of some sorta board walk empire reality show or some trendy person's new yoga routine. They have their greek minerals and water laced veggies from a foreign country.

Behind their acts are people who can catch their mistakes. I'm not saying it's wrong to be vegan. I agree with a lot of what vegan's believe.

I'm saying some people like this either get it right or they mess up, especially with kids. There is no court order demanding kids to believe in being vegan. They even serve food in hospitals. I'd say there are probably more meat eaters in the health care field and the people calling CPS on these parents.

I guess whatever long intelligent defense someone has. Their kid was doing pretty bad. If that's the case then there is nothing more you can say. They obviously weren't intelligent enough to provide the child with the right amount of foods.

You don't have to be a genius to know kids need food and nutrients.

 

[FiraB]

All about diet, my cousins have been vegan for 20 years and they all have youngsters. Its about eating the right foods and if need be bending ones diet for the baby like my cousin leia did with her fourth bub. Its fine and dandy to stick to your values but when they endanger another persons life then you seriously need to be realistic and adapt, go see someone to work out how to fix it and get it done.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Ethics are at the basis of society. It's impossible to not share your ethical views with your children. In fact I think it's very strange and hypocritical if you don't do this. If you think it's wrong to kill and/or exploit animals, you shouldn't make your kid eat butchered animals or products derived from their exploitation. Seems very simple and coherent to me.

As for nutrition, many people make lots of poor choices when it comes to nutrition. Animal products by themselves often are a poor choice when it comes to health. But rather than becoming deficient by eating them, you tend to get a lot of what you don't need. The problems involved with consuming them tend to be slow to appear, but very lethal when they develop.

I think you have to be careful when you make the argument that it's hypocritical for a parent not to share their ethical views with their children. Ethical views are often formed through research, education and experience and often have concepts and other reasoning attached to them that a child may just flatout not understand. Parents make choices for their kid all the time but not all those choices are going to be on the basis of things they feel they have the right to decide for their child. I find it flawed to imply that not imposing your own beliefs in your child at every opportunity is incorrect (if you arent saying that okay but that's how the post came across to me)

In terms of consumption of animal products I think the general issue is simply that society has a meat fetish. If you look at healthy eating guides across the world they almost all conclusively state they only recommend a small amount of meat products per day. And small is only in the range of a couple hundred grams. I think a lot of the actual issues that manifest from eating meat occur because of the insanely large portions consumed.

 

[Raven Prime]

Sorry Raven that simply isn't true. First though you are correct the classifications are undoubtedly human projections as nothing fits so neatly into th little boxes we give them.

Many herbivores supplement their diet with meat when available.

In fact, being a plant predator is the derived state for all vertebrates. Simply put vertebrates lack the necessary biochemical pathways to deal with plant biomass.

Now millions of years of evolution and close symbiotic relations with bacteria and fungus living in our guts has made us more capable, and plants have themselves formed incentives for eating certain parts of them, but eating plants is still the derived and not the intrinsic method for obtaining energy.

our ancestors began the path to herbivory millions of years ago, when we were still predominantly insectivores. Now at least seven million years a predominantly meat free diet was found only in specialist hominids, and those most similar were increasing meat intake rapidly.

What does this have to do with anything today. Nothing. We can easily survive on a meatless diet, have the resources and the technology to help us transition, and we will, in the end, be far better off for it.

I'm not sure what simply isn't true according to you, I get the feeling we are talking about very different kinds of ancestors. I'm talking about our ancestors roughly 4-6 million years ago.

Also if you could point me towards some data regarding herbivores supplementing with meat. I don't know to which extent that's true. I do know that the whole carnivore-herbivore spectrum is filled with animals that don't exactly clearly fit the description, as you and I have both pointed out.

It has nothing to do with lacking empathy. No matter what you eat, you have to kill to get it. I can totally get behind not supporting industrial farming and the terrible conditions it puts animals in, though.

You keep arguing that angle. However the word killing here is used as an equivocation, to try and suggest that the 'killing' of plants is morally the same sort of act as killing animals. Perhaps we should use terms like slaughter to clearly distinguish the act from the act of terminating the life of plants. To try and claim that the killing of plants and the killing of animals are morally comparable seems to clearly suggest a lack of empathy.

And the alternative for many animals is to simply not exist in the first place or be slaughtered by other predators.

I'd be fine with those domesticated animals not existing at all. I'm pretty sure non-existence is to be preferred over an "Eternal Treblinka" as Isaac Bashevis Singer would call it. As for suffering in the wild that is a totally different subject matter, one I leave for now to philosophers like David Pierce.

I think you have to be careful when you make the argument that it's hypocritical for a parent not to share their ethical views with their children. Ethical views are often formed through research, education and experience and often have concepts and other reasoning attached to them that a child may just flatout not understand. Parents make choices for their kid all the time but not all those choices are going to be on the basis of things they feel they have the right to decide for their child. I find it flawed to imply that not imposing your own beliefs in your child at every opportunity is incorrect (if you arent saying that okay but that's how the post came across to me)

In terms of consumption of animal products I think the general issue is simply that society has a meat fetish. If you look at healthy eating guides across the world they almost all conclusively state they only recommend a small amount of meat products per day. And small is only in the range of a couple hundred grams. I think a lot of the actual issues that manifest from eating meat occur because of the insanely large portions consumed.

I didn't really talk about imposing your beliefs against their wills or something like that, I'm all for giving your children the education to make up their own minds. Doesn't mean there aren't certain things an adult simply knows they are in the best interest of the child, even if the kid doesn't agree or understand. But general ethical understanding can be shared even if it's in a simplified form. Just to be clear, I definitely don't want to suggest a parent must impose it's views on the child at every opportunity. What I'm saying is that it's natural that a parent raises a child within a frame of reference that is congruent with his or her beliefs. This is something that happens almost naturally and I find it odd if you would go out of your way to raise your kid in a way that isn't congruent with your own views when the child never requested such a treatment.

 

[Daigoro]

damn, that OP is some sensationalist bullshit.

seriously, do some homework. same thing goes for those dumb parents.

 

[eddievanclaylen]

My sister is a vegan and had to start feeding her son cheese and milk because he was so malnourished. If i ever get a chance im feeding that kid a medium rare filet.

 

[entremet]

damn, that OP is some sensationalist bullshit.

seriously, do some homework. same thing goes for those dumb parents.

There's nothing sensationalists about it.

Those are just facts. The story is just reporting on facts. A vegan couple noticed their kid was not looking healthy, took him to the hospital, they diagnosed him, they got in trouble due to his malnourishment, but kept their kid since it wasn't seen as malicious, and decided to add animal products to curb the deficiencies.

Did you read the OP or the article? Its a very matter of fact story. It's not an editorial on the pros and cons on vegan diets.

No where does it say do not feed children vegan diets.

 

[happypup]

I'm not sure what simply isn't true according to you, I get the feeling we are talking about very different kinds of ancestors. I'm talking about our ancestors roughly 4-6 million years ago.

Also if you could point me towards some data regarding herbivores supplementing with meat. I don't know to which extent that's true. I do know that the whole carnivore-herbivore spectrum is filled with animals that don't exactly clearly fit the description, as you and I have both pointed out.

the first is a cow eating a squirrel the second a chick.

As to our ancestors 4 million years ago you are talking about Australopithecines.

These guys were supplementing their diet with meat, as evidence by their teeth. and jaws. Though boseii around 2 million years ago was a grass eater. a contemporary of H. ergaster, which was likely an aggressive hunter and a far closer ancestor.

Just look at the behaviors of our closest relatives the chimpanzees. They often go on hunts (some tribes more than others) and kill and eat monkeys. Their teeth are even more specialized for eating plant matter than ours and their common ancestor.

 

[Daigoro]

There's nothing sensationalist about it.

Those are just facts. The story is just reporting on facts. A vegan couple noticed their kid was not looking healthy, took him to the hospital, they diagnosed him, they got in trouble due to his malnourishment, but kept their kid since it wasn't seen as malicious, and decided to add animal products to curb the deficiencies.

Did you read the OP or the article? Its a very matter of fact story. It's not an editorial on the pros and cons on vegan diets.

No where does it say do not feed children vegan diets.

im talking about what you wrote. its obvious you dont know what you're talking about, but you state it like its a fact.

like i said, do some homework. either that, or stop giving out nutritional advice.

 

[IceCold]

What's the best diet to ensure that your kid reaches his genetic potential (in terms of height and stuff)? High caloric diet with high carbs and fat? Some people talk about low carb diets, low fat, vegetarian, and those might be good if you want to be lean as an adult, but for kids you have other things to worry about. Such as, fat for hormones, carbs for muscle growth, etc. These are especially important during puberty.

 

[entremet]

im talking about what you wrote. its obvious you dont know what you're talking about, but you state it like its a fact.

like i said, do some homework. either that, or stop giving out nutritional advice.

Read the rest. This is a discussion. At least read the thread. I made plenty of concessions.

Moreover, this specific couple didn't feed the kid vegan formula or baby food. Those are usually fortified with those essential nutrients. They went total plant matter and nutrient deficient breast milk only.

 

[Daigoro]

Read the rest. This is a discussion. At least read the thread. I made plenty of concessions.

you made plenty of assumptions. blatantly incorrect ones.

 

[entremet]

you made plenty of assumptions. blatantly incorrect ones.

Like what?

The main issue is that they thought veggies alone would suffice. That's my big point. What are the others you're taking about?

 

[Daigoro]

Like what?

The main issue is that they thought veggies alone would suffice. That's my big point. What are the others you're taking about?

like this-

A big issue with vegan diets, is the lack of caloric density. Babies need calories. Feeding him veggies at that age is pure silliness. Veggies are amongst the least caloric dense foods out there.

What's interesting is that the mother's breast milk was nutritionally deficient itself due to the vegan diet.

Breast milk should be sufficient if the mother is well nourished, but being vegan, that was not the case.

are you a pediatric nutritionist? because you are stating these things as if they were fact.

like i said, do some homework please. or just stop putting forth your opinions as if they were facts.

 

[entremet]

like this-



are you a pediatric nutritionist? because you are stating these things as if they were fact.

like i said, do some homework please.

I'm talking about this specific case.

Not all vegan diets can be calorie poor, but that can be a concern if done improperly, just like these idiots did.

They only gave the child veggies and breast milk that was coming from a malnourished mother. Again, it's about this specific case!

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You keep arguing that angle. However the word killing here is used as an equivocation, to try and suggest that the 'killing' of plants is morally the same sort of act as killing animals. Perhaps we should use terms like slaughter to clearly distinguish the act from the act of terminating the life of plants.

It's not just the actual killing of the plants directly for food. You have to take into consideration all of the death that comes with their planting and development. Entire ecosystems are wiped out to accommodate the growing of crops.

I'd be fine with those domesticated animals not existing at all. I'm pretty sure non-existence is to be preferred over an "Eternal Treblinka" as Isaac Bashevis Singer would call it. As for suffering in the wild that is a totally different subject matter, one I leave for now to philosophers like David Pierce.

"Is preferred."

Get back to me when you get some consensus from the animals on that.

I honestly don't get why your being fine with certain animals simply not existing in the first place is in any way morally superior to others being fine with killing animals for food (especially if it's done in a sane and sustainable way).

 

[Rentahamster]

At the same time, though, you have to question why humans are the only animals to drink milk from a different animal, too. All of our diets are weird or hard to understand in some way.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I don't question why humans are the only animals to raise the babies of a different animal to eat them. I don't question why humans are the only animals to purposefully propagate and cultivate plants or fungi for food (except for ants). I don't question why humans are the only animals to raise and protect other species in order to drink their secretions (except for ants). I don't question why an animal of higher intelligence like us would be more capable of identifying and harvesting food sources that are available.


Besides, cross-species milk drinking is actually a thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlqTHhdCQko

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ry-instincts-to-nurse-ducklings-29291970.html

 

[Raven Prime]

the first is a cow eating a squirrel the second a chick.

As to our ancestors 4 million years ago you are talking about Australopithecines.

These guys were supplementing their diet with meat, as evidence by their teeth. and jaws. Though boseii around 2 million years ago was a grass eater. a contemporary of H. ergaster, which was likely an aggressive hunter and a far closer ancestor.

Just look at the behaviors of our closest relatives the chimpanzees. They often go on hunts (some tribes more than others) and kill and eat monkeys. Their teeth are even more specialized for eating plant matter than ours and their common ancestor.

I asked you for some supportive data, not some random pictures. I mean the first is somewhat suggestive and the second it's hard to make anything out. And this hardly seems like standard behavior to me and on top of that these seem to be farm animals opening a plethora of possible explanations that have nothing to do with natural behavior. What I hoped to get from you was some sort of supportive documentation.

As for Australopethicus I believe the consensus is that the eating of meat is something that only happened since 2.5 million years ago or so. Besides jaws and teeth aren't the best indication of what type of diet a species ate, or you have to be referring to actual fossil remains and the indentations found on those. Again when it comes to chimpanzees many researchers believe that their hunts are in many ways ceremonial or have to do simply with tribal struggles for power and territory, not with any actual need for animal protein. However while it can't be denied that chimps eat animal products, the majority of their diets consist of plant based foods. Wikipedia describes them as omnivorous frugivores. The Great Apes as a group even further cement the notion that we are all primarily plant eaters. And that brings us back to the fact that these taxonomic categories aren't as absolute nor as precise as many seem to believe. Hominids being intelligent creatures are very opportunistic and creative in getting their nutritional needs, but their staple foods are undeniably plant-based in nature.

It's not just the actual killing of the plants directly for food.
You have to take into consideration all of the death that comes with their planting and development. Entire ecosystems are wiped out to accommodate the growing of crops.

I think we have gone over this before, and I already alluded to it in this topic. Anyway, society can't exist without some form of agriculture. The rise of civilization and agriculture go hand in hand. But as I pointed out, many technologies being developed and refined right now will probably massively reduce the overall impact of agriculture. A vegan society will certainly invest thought in how to optimize these systems and to reduce overall suffering. Technologies like hydroponics are very promising in this regard.

"Is preferred."

Get back to me when you get some consensus from the animals on that.

I honestly don't get why your being fine with certain animals simply not existing in the first place is in any way morally superior to others being fine with killing animals for food (especially if it's done in a sane and sustainable way).

We have empathy for that. I as an animal would vastly prefer non-existence over an 'Eternal Treblinka' for me and my loved ones. As humans we all very much value our freedom. If you would rather live as someone's property, in a small confined space to eventually after a period of accelerated growth to be separated from your loved ones and get slaughtered, that's up to you. But I don't think you will find many people would rather experience that than nothing at all. Why would our animal species be so unique in that regard? Other species also flee from discomfort and escape cages if they get the chance. There are anecdotes about dolphins basically committing suicide because they live in small confined spaces.

 

[takriel]

That's too easy. This case is just a bit extreme because of the age of the child, but vegan children hospitalized because of negligence happens often.

I wonder why the doctor didn't see the symptoms before though, the doctors are normally very strict if they know the parents' eating habit.

Das Problem ist laut Hasselmann nicht die vegane Ernährung an sich, sondern der – bewusste oder unbewusste – Verzicht der Eltern auf zusätzliches Vitamin B 12.

I think that is of central importance. Are these parents misinformed about the importance of vitamin B12? Or do they choose not to give it to their children?

 

[Poona]

I respect people's decision to live cruelty free, but please do your research if you have a baby. I don't think the parents here were being malicious at all. But imposing a vegan diet to an infant doesn't seem wise. Let the kid grow up first and make his decisions.

Let the kid grow up first to make their own decisions? What about letting them grow up first to decide whether they want to eat meat? Give them fruit and a cow/sheep/chicken/pig whilst still young which are they going to think is for eating? Even if they attempt to go for the moving animal, and not look at it as a friend it'll get away.

Anyway many mothers are vegan and so children follow. Alicia Silverstone is a vegan and has written plenty on being a mother and her children:

http://thekindlife.com/the-kind-mama/

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

lol at zefah being extra hypocritical.
Your diet is not sustainable without modern agriculture,and medicine either.

I get the vegan ethics, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Those tired arguments from antiquity are really lame.

Thing is nonsense. Shameful that it comes from a respected institution like Harvard.

The mere fact that they are differentiating "refined grains" and "whole grains" when it comes to risk of diabetes and heart disease shows just about how far you should trust that thing.

And before zefah plays the victim, he's called other posters as just relaying "bullshit bullet points". Especially when it comes to whole grains.

You play the same field dude. Don't moralize. Don't play the victim. The science is clearly on our side of sensible diet advice not extremes as you proclaim. There is nothing scientific about a keto diet vs a Mediterranean diet. Get over yourself. A keto diet has its functions and pre diabetes might be a form, but again we just don't know and many studies are preliminary


You are a poster on a message board not a dietitian.


I have nothing against low carb or keto diets. Except when people proclaim that it's the default. There is no default when it comes to human diets. You have extremes at both ends and are just ignoring most of human history when you do so.

At least vegans try to fortify and find alternatives to their deficiency instead of a blanket statement.

 

[Zoned]

I'm talking about this specific case.

Not all vegan diets can be calorie poor, but that can be a concern if done improperly, just like these idiots did.

They only gave the child veggies and breast milk that was coming from a malnourished mother. Again, it's about this specific case!

So if some meat eater is obese then him eating the meat is the problem and not the fact that he didn't carefully assess his calorie intake. What? As for your "not all", that vague statement could be applied to everything on the planet. Even water. Jesus dude you should really come up better arguments because right now it seems like you are just writing inane posts.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Entrement is right though. These parents were not responsible.

You can raise a vegan child, just don't ignore the obvious diet deficits.

 

[hodgy100]

Jesus christ this is a gross article. Making a link between the parents being vegan and the malnourished child is pretty disgusting this is a clear case of correlation != causation you can have a vegan child and it not be malnourished, the parents were obviously oblivious of the child dietary needs and failed to provide the nourishment required, which is easily achievable even on a vegan diet.

 

[cyberheater]

I get it. But I totally understand veganism and vegetarianism. I misspoke. Do you seriously think that I think fish are vegetables?

It's a silly rejoinder.

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[USC-fan]

We really need that lab grown meat to be a thing so people have better options.

 

[cyberheater]

It's not just the actual killing of the plants directly for food. You have to take into consideration all of the death that comes with their planting and development. Entire ecosystems are wiped out to accommodate the growing of crops.

Are you really saying that the killing of a calf and the harvesting of a carrot are the same.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Are you really saying that the killing of a calf and the harvesting of a carrot are the same.

He's an idiot.
The argument of extinction vs domestication is not at all relevant

 

[cyberheater]

He's an idiot.
The argument of extinction vs domestication is not at all relevant

Indeed he is.

 

[SapientWolf]

Jesus christ this is a gross article. Making a link between the parents being vegan and the malnourished child is pretty disgusting this is a clear case of correlation != causation you can have a vegan child and it not be malnourished, the parents were obviously oblivious of the child dietary needs and failed to provide the nourishment required, which is easily achievable even on a vegan diet.

The article sticks to the facts. Meeting the body's nutritional needs is not easy at all through vegan food sources, unless they've been artificially fortified with B12.

 

[ngower]

Catching up on this thread, just a few points:

• I don't understand how this thread has gone so awry. Ignoring the original post, if someone elects to eat a vegan diet/live a vegan lifestyle, why are some of you so vehemently opposed to that? It has zero effect on your life.

• Regarding the availability of vegan food, I live in a run-of-the-mill stereotypical American mall-centric suburb. I can walk to a Chipotle and get vegan options there (high in salt, though), there's a burger joint and a noodle house a few blocks away that offer a handful of vegan options, there's the grocery story right across the street which has plenty of vegan meals to go...so I'm not sure where that tangent came from. And while most vegan cheeses taste like plastic, daiya is really fucking good. Seriously, try it on your pizza instead of dairy-based cheeses. It's a little salty for my tastes, but still excellent.

• At the end of all of this, we seem to be attacking/defending veganism as a viable diet, rather than commenting on the main issue: bad parenting. Someone else echoed my sentiment that they should have consulted with a pediatrician before/while putting their kid on a vegan diet. Monitoring nutrition levels and state of liver/kidney would be simple blood tests (or maybe even urine) and would be as cheap as a co-pay. Stupid stupid move from the parents.

 

[happypup]

I asked you for some supportive data, not some random pictures. I mean the first is somewhat suggestive and the second it's hard to make anything out. And this hardly seems like standard behavior to me and on top of that these seem to be farm animals opening a plethora of possible explanations that have nothing to do with natural behavior. What I hoped to get from you was some sort of supportive documentation.

As for Australopethicus I believe the consensus is that the eating of meat is something that only happened since 2.5 million years ago or so. Besides jaws and teeth aren't the best indication of what type of diet a species ate, or you have to be referring to actual fossil remains and the indentations found on those. Again when it comes to chimpanzees many researchers believe that their hunts are in many ways ceremonial or have to do simply with tribal struggles for power and territory, not with any actual need for animal protein. However while it can't be denied that chimps eat animal products, the majority of their diets consist of plant based foods. Wikipedia describes them as omnivorous frugivores. The Great Apes as a group even further cement the notion that we are all primarily plant eaters. And that brings us back to the fact that these taxonomic categories aren't as absolute nor as precise as many seem to believe. Hominids being intelligent creatures are very opportunistic and creative in getting their nutritional needs, but their staple foods are undeniably plant-based in nature.

Teeth and Jaw structure are very indicative of diet. primarily the shape of premolars and molars with cutting rather than grinding shapes and the size and shape of the diasterna.

As to documentation of the most specialized of herbivores the ruminants eating meat.

A Slate Article Deer Eat Meat

Now to your discussion of meat eating evidence found around 2.5 million years ago, this is evidence of big game hunts, if you will. Stone tool use in bringing down big game. The marks on bones It is very likely humans were eating small game/insects long before these behaviors developed.

True Herbivory in vertebrates is rare, because we all come from carnivorous ancestors. Now many vertebrates have specialized in eating plants, and we probably should commit to a herbivorous diet, but to say that it is the natural way for us is just not true.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Are you really saying that the killing of a calf and the harvesting of a carrot are the same.

No. That would have been clear to you if you read my posts in which I said nothing of the sort.

He's an idiot.
The argument of extinction vs domestication is not at all relevant

Nice, man.

Indeed he is.

You, too. Straw man, blah blah... Misrepresent someone's position and then knock them down with insults. Great behavior.

lol at zefah being extra hypocritical.
Your diet is not sustainable without modern agriculture,and medicine either.

I get the vegan ethics, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Those tired arguments from antiquity are really lame.



And before zefah plays the victim, he's called other posters as just relaying "bullshit bullet points". Especially when it comes to whole grains.

You play the same field dude. Don't moralize. Don't play the victim. The science is clearly on our side of sensible diet advice not extremes as you proclaim. There is nothing scientific about a keto diet vs a Mediterranean diet. Get over yourself. A keto diet has its functions and pre diabetes might be a form, but again we just don't know and many studies are preliminary


You are a poster on a message board not a dietitian.


I have nothing against low carb or keto diets. Except when people proclaim that it's the default. There is no default when it comes to human diets. You have extremes at both ends and are just ignoring most of human history when you do so.

At least vegans try to fortify and find alternatives to their deficiency instead of a blanket statement.

Wow, missed this post before responding.

You've completely lost it, Penguin. I'm not going to bother responding to anything in your post since you're just bringing up a mixture of stuff from other threads in your continued personal vendetta against me, which is really not appreciated, but I'm sure you don't care. What would be appreciated is if you stopped misrepresenting what I write in these threads. You're really going out of your way to twist words and sentiments.

 

[Raven Prime]

Teeth and Jaw structure are very indicative of diet. primarily the shape of premolars and molars with cutting rather than grinding shapes and the size and shape of the diasterna.

As to documentation of the most specialized of herbivores the ruminants eating meat.

A Slate Article Deer Eat Meat

Now to your discussion of meat eating evidence found around 2.5 million years ago, this is evidence of big game hunts, if you will. Stone tool use in bringing down big game. The marks on bones It is very likely humans were eating small game/insects long before these behaviors developed.

True Herbivory in vertebrates is rare, because we all come from carnivorous ancestors. Now many vertebrates have specialized in eating plants, and we probably should commit to a herbivorous diet, but to say that it is the natural way for us is just not true.

Teeth and jaws are indeed indicative, I'm just saying that by themselves in isolation they might perhaps be somewhat misleading. Are the teeth and jaws of Inuit and Okinawans for example so very different from each other? Yet their diets are definitely very different.

Thank you for the article very interesting. Basically I can apply my argument of hominid opportunism to the rest of these herbivores that do this. Problem still is that I don't know how frequent and widespread this behavior is.

While there is a definite sense of moral behavior in the rest of the animal kingdom, it's definitely not of the elevated kind humans practice. This is the important distinction veganism holds over herbivory.

When it comes to true herbivory being rare, I just don't see it. I think we are looking at it from a different angle, and the period you are talking about seems to be a lot longer than I am focusing on. My main argument is that hominids are biologically specialized in the consumption on plant-based matter, we have a generalist flexibility but our herbivore specialization seems pretty undeniable to me. Chimpanzees aren't called omnivorous frugivores for nothing, they are generalists in behavior, but their preference for plants and fruits are clear. When it comes to insects, it doesn't seem non-humans are too obsessed with cleaning their food, so even if they aren't specifically foraging for insects, they will consume them.

So when we take all that into consideration, including the CMAH mutation in humans and the problems that creates, I think it makes a very compelling case of us not being true omnivores (if such a thing even exists) and to consider our apparent herbivore specialization/roots. At the end of the day I would be content with describing humans as omnivorous herbivores, just as the chimpanzees are described as omnivorous frugivores.

As for our ancestors from 4-5 million years ago:

— About 4.2 million to 4 million years ago on the Kenyan side of the Turkana Basin, one of Cerling’s new studies shows that human ancestor Australopithecus anamensis ate at least 90 percent leaves and fruits – the same diet as modern chimps.

— By 3.4 million years ago in northeast Ethiopia’s Awash Basin, according to Wynn’s study, Australopithecus afarensis was eating significant amounts of C4 grasses and sedges: 22 percent on average, but with a wide range among individuals of anywhere from 0 percent to 69 percent grasses and sedges. The species also ate some succulent plants. Wynn says that switch “documents a transformational stage in our ecological history.” Many scientists previously believed A. afarensis had an ape-like C3 diet. It remains a mystery why A. afarensis expanded its menu to C4 grasses when its likely ancestor, A. anamensis, did not, although both inhabited savanna habitats, Wynn writes.

- http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/a-grassy-trend-in-human-ancestors-diets/

 

[outunderthestars]

I'm talking about this specific case.

Not all vegan diets can be calorie poor, but that can be a concern if done improperly, just like these idiots did.

They only gave the child veggies and breast milk that was coming from a malnourished mother. Again, it's about this specific case!

This right here. I think it is important to separate the story itself from the larger questions about diet.

Can a child be raised on a vegan diet and be healthy, yes. Did these parents do that? No.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Jesus christ this is a gross article. Making a link between the parents being vegan and the malnourished child is pretty disgusting this is a clear case of correlation != causation you can have a vegan child and it not be malnourished, the parents were obviously oblivious of the child dietary needs and failed to provide the nourishment required, which is easily achievable even on a vegan diet.

Did you read the article? It did not say that Vegan parents can not sufficiently provide nutrition for their children to thrive, even with Vegan diets.

It mentions the fact that they are Vegans, because in this case, it's extremely likely that the child would not have been deficient in iron and vitamin B12 if they had not been following the diet. It does not say that avoiding Veganism is the only way to avoid such deficiencies.

Chimpanzees aren't called omnivorous frugivores for nothing, they are generalists in behavior, but their preference for plants and fruits are clear.

I imagine that has a whole lot to do with availability and ease of access.

• At the end of all of this, we seem to be attacking/defending veganism as a viable diet, rather than commenting on the main issue: bad parenting.

I think it's the idea that, if the kid were not on a Vegan diet, he would not have had nutritional deficiencies. Of course, we know that isn't necessarily true. Plenty of parents feed their kids total garbage.

I as an animal would vastly prefer non-existence over an 'Eternal Treblinka' for me and my loved ones.

You really can't say that. You, as a human privileged enough to be arguing on the Internet about stuff like this, would, in the completely impossible and hypothetical prospect of being an animal, prefer non-existence to what you call "Eternal Treblinka." You're really just projecting human feelings onto animals. You may be correct, but there's no way to know. I certainly don't think your example of dolphin suicide is at all appropriate considering the vast difference in cognitive abilities between them an domesticated farm animals.

 

[Raven Prime]

I imagine that has a whole lot to do with availability and ease of access.

I guess not.

The chimpanzee is an omnivorous frugivore. It prefers fruit above all other food items and will even seek out and eat them when they are not abundant.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I guess not.

You're quoting me a sentence in a Wikipedia article that doesn't even have a citation as evidence to the contrary? That doesn't seem like a great idea.

Oh, here are the sentences that follow your quoted piece:

It will also eat leaves and leaf buds. Seeds, blossoms, stems, pith, bark and resin, insects and meat make up the rest of its diet.[20][28] While the common chimpanzee is mostly herbivorous, it does eat honey, soil, insects, birds and their eggs, and small to medium-sized mammals, including other primates.

Of course they want to go to where fruit is abundant. Because once they've found a source, it's extremely easy to access and they don't have to worry about food again for a while. Beats foraging and hunting.

 

[Jenov]

Teeth and jaws are indeed indicative, I'm just saying that by themselves in isolation they might perhaps be somewhat misleading. Are the teeth and jaws of Inuit and Okinawans for example so very different from each other? Yet their diets are definitely very different.

Thank you for the article very interesting. Basically I can apply my argument of hominid opportunism to the rest of these herbivores that do this. Problem still is that I don't know how frequent and widespread this behavior is.

While there is a definite sense of moral behavior in the rest of the animal kingdom, it's definitely not of the elevated kind humans practice. This is the important distinction veganism holds over herbivory.

When it comes to true herbivory being rare, I just don't see it. I think we are looking at it from a different angle, and the period you are talking about seems to be a lot longer than I am focusing on. My main argument is that hominids are biologically specialized in the consumption on plant-based matter, we have a generalist flexibility but our herbivore specialization seems pretty undeniable to me. Chimpanzees aren't called omnivorous frugivores for nothing, they are generalists in behavior, but their preference for plants and fruits are clear. When it comes to insects, it doesn't seem non-humans are too obsessed with cleaning their food, so even if they aren't specifically foraging for insects, they will consume them.

So when we take all that into consideration, including the CMAH mutation in humans and the problems that creates, I think it makes a very compelling case of us not being true omnivores (if such a thing even exists) and to consider our apparent herbivore specialization/roots. At the end of the day I would be content with describing humans as omnivorous herbivores, just as the chimpanzees are described as omnivorous frugivores.

As for our ancestors from 4-5 million years ago:

- http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/a-grassy-trend-in-human-ancestors-diets/

Are you really trying to argue that humans are meant to be vegans because of some 5 million year old bones? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps we evolved from primarily herbivore to a more omnivorous species because it was advantageous and provided more energy gains as well as supported larger brain growth? Humans didn't accidentally become omnivores, they evolved as so over the last million of years because it was an advantage. And I don't know about you, but I see nothing to envy in going backwards to a ancient diet and becoming more chimp like. Humans have become supremely successful as the top omnivore species. Granted, there could be improvements to our meat farming methods.