I appreciate the extensive time and effort you’ve put into this post/project, and I also find the framing odd and potentially misleading. Health risks change when someone stops eating animal products, but the health risks of a vegan diet are substantially less bad than the health risks of a standard diet.
I believe you overstate the risks of nutrient insufficiency generally and largely fail to engage with the health ramifications of animal product consumption. The “trade-off” is a possible increased risk of nutrient deficiency and decreased risk of a host of pervasive and debilitating health issues. If option A is “the nutrient deficiencies you found in previous research, such as iron and Vitamin D, which can have palpable effects if left unaddressed” and option B is “the standard risk of nutrient insufficiencies/deficiencies and an increased for cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and foodborne illness,” I think most people would readily opt for option A. All else equal and ethics aside, I’d personally rather take some supplements than increase my risk of cancer or salmonella or E. coli.
The “trade-off,” as a result, ends up skewing in a positive direction for most people switching from e.g. the Standard American Diet to a vegan diet; the vegan diet just comes with new, readily addressable, and substantially less scary risks.
People should pay attention to their nutrition. They should e.g. get blood tests at their yearly checkups. And no one should act like veganism is a silver bullet to all health issues. But I find this post overall misleading.
I 100% agree the Standard American Diet is shit. I also think “take some tests and then pills” fixes most of the problems of veganism for most people (although I’m not holding effort constant). If Standard American Diet had as easy a fix I would absolutely be talking about that, but it mostly doesn’t, because fixing Standard American Diet involves giving up things people like or eating things they don’t. When I find potential improvements to SAD that are anywhere near as easy to implement or evaluate as “take some tests and some pills”, I’m very quick to talk about them.
But I see a lot of vegans who aren’t taking the tests or pills, who didn’t know that was necessary, and are hurt because of it. And when I try to talk about and fix the problem, by providing tests and pills, people tell me I shouldn’t because it might discourage veganism.
Another question raised by your post is the point at which someone who is experiencing certain symptoms (e.g., fatigue) yet has normal lab levels and is on supplements should consider a trial of reintroducing a moderate amount of animal products in their diet. Nutrition is complex, and modern applied understandings often seem to be reductionistic—so establishing normal lab values doesn’t clearly rule out a dietary contribution. My answer would be that this is a conversation someone should be having with their treating physician, which is one of the reasons why I don’t like sources that come across as dismissive about taking medical advice, or that suggest that adverse health consequences are impossible.
I can’t answer that question, but would note that a elaborate medical workup can be financially and logistically arduous, can take a significant amount of time during which the person doesn’t have any relief, and can involve some risk. If no reversible cause is found for the symptom, and you’re stuck with symptom management—those treatments may have side effects and risks.
I want to talk about the risks of meat consumption in the next post. Is the post you link to here your favorite source, or is there another you think is better?
I appreciate the extensive time and effort you’ve put into this post/project, and I also find the framing odd and potentially misleading. Health risks change when someone stops eating animal products, but the health risks of a vegan diet are substantially less bad than the health risks of a standard diet.
I believe you overstate the risks of nutrient insufficiency generally and largely fail to engage with the health ramifications of animal product consumption. The “trade-off” is a possible increased risk of nutrient deficiency and decreased risk of a host of pervasive and debilitating health issues. If option A is “the nutrient deficiencies you found in previous research, such as iron and Vitamin D, which can have palpable effects if left unaddressed” and option B is “the standard risk of nutrient insufficiencies/deficiencies and an increased for cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and foodborne illness,” I think most people would readily opt for option A. All else equal and ethics aside, I’d personally rather take some supplements than increase my risk of cancer or salmonella or E. coli.
The “trade-off,” as a result, ends up skewing in a positive direction for most people switching from e.g. the Standard American Diet to a vegan diet; the vegan diet just comes with new, readily addressable, and substantially less scary risks.
People should pay attention to their nutrition. They should e.g. get blood tests at their yearly checkups. And no one should act like veganism is a silver bullet to all health issues. But I find this post overall misleading.
I 100% agree the Standard American Diet is shit. I also think “take some tests and then pills” fixes most of the problems of veganism for most people (although I’m not holding effort constant). If Standard American Diet had as easy a fix I would absolutely be talking about that, but it mostly doesn’t, because fixing Standard American Diet involves giving up things people like or eating things they don’t. When I find potential improvements to SAD that are anywhere near as easy to implement or evaluate as “take some tests and some pills”, I’m very quick to talk about them.
But I see a lot of vegans who aren’t taking the tests or pills, who didn’t know that was necessary, and are hurt because of it. And when I try to talk about and fix the problem, by providing tests and pills, people tell me I shouldn’t because it might discourage veganism.
Another question raised by your post is the point at which someone who is experiencing certain symptoms (e.g., fatigue) yet has normal lab levels and is on supplements should consider a trial of reintroducing a moderate amount of animal products in their diet. Nutrition is complex, and modern applied understandings often seem to be reductionistic—so establishing normal lab values doesn’t clearly rule out a dietary contribution. My answer would be that this is a conversation someone should be having with their treating physician, which is one of the reasons why I don’t like sources that come across as dismissive about taking medical advice, or that suggest that adverse health consequences are impossible.
I can’t answer that question, but would note that a elaborate medical workup can be financially and logistically arduous, can take a significant amount of time during which the person doesn’t have any relief, and can involve some risk. If no reversible cause is found for the symptom, and you’re stuck with symptom management—those treatments may have side effects and risks.
I want to talk about the risks of meat consumption in the next post. Is the post you link to here your favorite source, or is there another you think is better?