submitted
3 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)
by
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
to
c/vegan@lemmy.world
If you're here because of the "drama", congratulations, I am too apparently. If you're also here with the position that a vegan diet is unhealthy in humans, I'm begging you for a toilet break's worth of your time. The contents of this post are wholly divorced from ethics or environmental concerns, are not here to "own you with facts and logic", and are focused solely on human health through the quoting of scientific literature. For as many of these as I can, I have provided links to the full text on the NCBI's PubMed Commons in the interest of transparency.
- It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes [...] Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. —Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2016)
- Based on this systematic review of randomized clinical trials, there is an overall robust support for beneficial effects of a plant-based diet on metabolic measures in health and disease. —Translational Psychiatry (2019)
- In most countries a vegan diet has less energy and saturated fat compared to omnivorous control diets, and is associated with favourable cardiometabolic risk profile including lower body weight, LDL cholesterol, fasting blood glucose, blood pressure and triglycerides. —PLoS One meta-analysis (2018)
- This comprehensive meta-analysis reports a significant protective effect of a vegetarian diet versus the incidence and/or mortality from ischemic heart disease (-25%) and incidence from total cancer (-8%). Vegan diet conferred a significant reduced risk (-15%) of incidence from total cancer. —Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition (2017)
- The present systematic review and meta-analysis showed a 15% and a 21% reduction in the relative risk of CVD and IHD, respectively, for vegetarians compared to nonvegetarians, but no clear association was observed for total stroke or subtypes of stroke. In addition, an 18% reduction in the relative risk of IHD was observed among vegans when compared to nonvegetarians, although this association was imprecise. —European Journal of Nutrition (2023)
- Adequate intake of dietary fiber is associated with digestive health and reduced risk for heart disease, stroke, hypertension, certain gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers. According to consumer research, the public is aware of the benefits of fiber and most people believe they consume enough fiber. However, national consumption surveys indicate that only about 5% of the population meets recommendations, and inadequate intakes have been called a public health concern [...] The IOM defines total fiber as the sum of dietary fiber and functional fiber. Dietary fiber includes nondigestible carbohydrates and lignins that are intrinsic and intact in plants; functional fiber includes isolated, nondigestible carbohydrates that have beneficial physiological effects in humans. Common sources of intrinsic fiber include grain products, vegetables, legumes, and fruit. —American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine (2017)
- [R]ecommendations to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, while decreasing saturated fat and dairy intake, are supported [for asthma] by the current literature. Mediterranean and vegan diets emphasizing the consumption of fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes, while reducing or eliminating animal products, might reduce the risk of asthma development and exacerbation. Fruit and vegetable intake has been associated with reduced asthma risk and better asthma control, while dairy consumption is associated with increased risk and might exacerbate asthmatic symptoms. —Nutrition Reviews (2020)
- Over the past two decades, a substantial body of consistent evidence has emerged at the cellular and molecular level, elucidating the numerous benefits of a plant-based diet (PBD) for preventing and mitigating conditions such as atherosclerosis, chronic noncommunicable diseases, and metabolic syndrome. —Nutrients comprehensive review (2023)
- Consumption of vegetarian diets, particularly vegan diets, is associated with lower levels of plasma lipids, which could offer individuals and healthcare professionals an effective option for reducing the risk of heart disease or other chronic conditions. —Nutrition Reviews systematic review and meta-analysis (2017)
- After adjusting for basic demographic characteristics, medical specialty, and health behaviours (smoking, physical activity) in model 2, participants who followed plant-based diets had 73% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) compared with participants who did not follow plant-based diets. Similarly, participants who followed either plant-based diets or pescatarian diets had 59% lower odds of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99) compared with those who did not follow these diets. —British Medical Journal (2021)
- Current research suggests that switching to a plant-based diet may help increase the diversity of health-promoting bacteria in the gut. However, more research is needed to describe the connections between nutrition, the microbiome, and health outcomes because of their complexity and individual heterogeneity. —Nutrients systematic review (2023)
- [T]his systematic review shows that plant-based diets and their components might have the potential to improve cancer prognosis, especially for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer survivors. —Current Nutrition Reports (2022)
- Moderate evidence suggests that adhering to vegan diets for at least 12 weeks may be effective in individuals with overweight or type 2 diabetes to induce a meaningful decrease in body weight and improve glycemia. —Obesity Reviews systematic review and meta-analysis (2022)
- The data discussed in this systematic review allow us to conclude that plant-based diets are associated with lower BP and overall better health outcomes (namely, on the cardiovascular system) when compared with animal-based diets. —Current Hypertension Reports (2023)
- There are multiple benefits of a vegan or vegetarian diet [six listed, too long to quote here] in the management of CKD [...] —Journal of Renal Nutrition (2019)
- The present systematic review provides evidence that vegan and vegetarian diets are associated with lower CRP levels, a major marker of inflammation and a mediator of inflammatory processes. —Scientific Reports (2020)
- Evidence strongly suggests that plant-based dietary patterns that are abundant in fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes, and whole grains with less emphasis on animal foods and processed foods are a useful and a practical approach to preventing chronic diseases. Such dietary patterns, from plant-exclusive diets to plant-centered diets, are associated with improved long-term health outcomes and a lower risk of all-cause mortality. Given that neurodegenerative disorders share many pathophysiological mechanisms with CVD, including oxidative stress, inflammation, and vascular damage, it is reasonable to deduce that plant-based diets can ameliorate cognitive decline as well. —Advances in Nutrition (2019)
- [T]he current study presents evidence that plant-based diets, among which the vegan diet, have no effect on physical performance, including on strength/power performance. It is noteworthy that aerobic performance may be even benefitted by these diets. —British Journal of Nutrition systematic review and meta-analysis (2024)
- [H]igher adherence to plant-based dietary patterns, especially from healthy sources, may be universally beneficial for the primary prevention of T2D, CVD, cancer, and mortality. —Nutrition Journal systematic review and meta-analysis (2023)
- This umbrella review offers valuable insights on the estimated reduction of risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases and cancer, and the CVDs-associated mortality, offered by the adoption of plant-based diets through pleiotropic mechanisms. Through the improvement of glycolipid profile, reduction of body weight/BMI, blood pressure, and systemic inflammation, A/AFPDs significantly reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, gastrointestinal and prostate cancer, as well as related mortality. —PLoS One (2024)
- In this community‐based cohort of US adults without cardiovascular disease at baseline, we found that higher adherence to an overall plant‐based diet or a provegetarian diet, diets that are higher in plant foods and lower in animal foods, was associated with a lower risk of incident cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular disease mortality, and all‐cause mortality. —Journal of the American Heart Association (2019)
- In this meta-analysis of prospective observational studies, we found that greater adherence to a plant-based dietary patterns was inversely associated with the risk of type 2 diabetes. These findings were broadly consistent across subgroups defined by various population characteristics and robust in sensitivity analyses.—JAMA Internal Medicine (2019)
- Our findings suggest that a shift in diet from a high consumption of animal-based foods, especially red and processed meat, to plant-based foods (e.g., nuts, legumes, and whole grains) is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, CVD, and T2D. Thus, a change in dietary habits towards an increment of plant-based products appears to be important for cardiometabolic health. —BMC Medicine systematic review and meta-analysis (2023)
- Not only is there a broad expansion of the research database supporting the myriad benefits of plant-based diets, but also health care practitioners are seeing awe-inspiring results with their patients across multiple unique subspecialties. Plant-based diets have been associated with lowering overall and ischemic heart disease mortality; supporting sustainable weight management; reducing medication needs; lowering the risk for most chronic diseases; decreasing the incidence and severity of high-risk conditions, including obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and hyperglycemia; and even possibly reversing advanced coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes. —The Permanente Journal (2016)
The technician did a great job replying to most of what you said, but can I just add one more thing which helped me see veganism from a different perspective, in response to you calling veganism a religion (I know you changed your view already and probably didn't mean it literally but I just wanted to address it anyway):
Apart from the obvious that veganism (which I prefer to consider "the animal rights stance") is an ethical position/social justice movement more alike to something like feminism or pro-LGBT rights; and doesn't have any spiritual beliefs attached to it and is based purely in ethics/compassion, philosophy/logic/reason, as well as science/evidence (for the related environmental and health components), meaning it doesn't really cover any of the hallmarks of a religion unless we consider other, human rights-based justice movements religions too...
I almost see veganism as being the opposite of a religion, not just because it frequently rejects religion as being an excuse or justification for violating individuals' rights (though it is compatible with religion and there are arguments for veganism from religious perspectives like there are for other rights-based positions, e.g. the Quakers were actually pivotal in abolishing slavery in the US, and progressive churches make a case for homosexuality being accepted and for it to be sinful to victimize people on the basis of their sexuality, etc)...
But because veganism confers the ABSENCE of dogma, not the presence of it: that dogma being the normalized, ingrained societal/cultural belief system that accepts and assumes not just the superiority of humans and lowered importance of non-humans (human supremacy/anthropocentrism), and the differential perceived-value & treatment of certain species of sentient beings based on factors like their utility to humans or their endearment to us (speciesism), but also accepts & even promotes (and largely opposes the rejection of) carnism, or the systemic exploitation of & cruelty toward non-human animals for various purposes, which utilizes the "four Ns" of carnist conditioning as a validation mechanism; that to exploit animals for their flesh, secretions, skin, fur, etc. is "Nice, Normal, Natural, and Necessary"... which are views based not on science but on a willingness to believe in things without evidence or reason, often that suit one's pre-existing narrative and are convenient to enable them to maintain control over less powerful members of society, or vulnerable/innocent individuals/victims and continue acting according to the status quo (which is unfortunately how religion has often been used, though not inherently, and sometimes in the opposite way).
In this regard, you could argue that veganism is to carnism, what atheism/agnosticism is to religion/theism. I hope this makes sense.
Welcome to lemmy! I saw your opening post and wondered how long until we interacted.
I see and understand your perspective on veganism vis a vis religion, and I will say most of my commentary is not based on the topics of your argument.
Rather, when I say veganism as a religion, I'm referring to unyielding evangelism or knee-jerk denunciation of "carnism" which I put in quotes because I honestly think it's a pretty ridiculous attempt at a stake in the ground for veganism. But that's, like, just my opinion, man.
All of that said, your argument DOES make sense with respect to couching veganism as the atheism/agnosticism of the discussion if it weren't for the merciless/alternating evangelism and then going to touch "home base" in a vegan community. I would even be OK with that situation, but the host instances of vegan subs are awful. It says something really profound to me that most people don't want to associate with the instances veganism call home.
Thanks for the warm welcome! 😃
Yes, I suppose you're right that veganism would be more like atheism in its absence or rejection of a traditionally dominant belief system & its concomitant behaviors, if someone was simply vegan and didn't do any activism/advocacy/promoting or "evangelizing" or proselytizing, which has a less religious connotation (which, to be fair, is most vegans. You only hear about the activists or vocal vegans because, well, they want to be heard & want to spread the idea of veganism or the often esoteric information & evidence related to it with the masses).
In that sense the kind of veganism which doubles as not just a personal position but also an actively pushed social movement is kind of like a hybrid between atheism & abolitionism/social justice causes I guess? Unless you count anti-religious people who actively oppose & challenge religion in a kind of philosophic activism, also termed New Atheism, but that's not as much of a "social justice" movement as such, though it can be related to a defense of those causes when viewing religion as a threat to them.
I don't personally find it to be too strange or unreasonable for vegans to invent a term or terms to recognise and describe the ideology/ies we're either rejecting or actively opposed to (carnism, speciesism, human supremacy, anthropocentrism, etc - many of which pre-dated veganism & even weren't strictly born out of animal rights discussions but rather human psychology in general). If veganism is the absence of certain beliefs & practices, it makes sense to put a name to those beliefs & practices, no? Otherwise veganism remains a rather nebulous concept without a clear goal or reason, and can often seem like simply an idea or practice in itself rather than the dismantling of such. Doing so also helps to de-otherize veganism in a similar way to how terms like "cisgender" help to de-otherize transgenderism by establishing that the norm is in fact identifiable & describable in itself & does have its own clear set of characteristics. I'm happy to use "non-vegan" (which does contain the otherizing of veganism issue) in case the term carnism brings offence, but I would wager any offence it causes is likely to stem from the challenging nature of what it exposes & addresses, as it's quite literally just holding up a mirror to larger society's choices & attitudes with as much accuracy as possible, without any inherent judgment as a matter-of-fact descriptor (not that judgment can't be placed on it). Terms like this intend to foster honest discussions about the truth of our nature. If people don't like what they see (which to me indicates an acknowledgement of some tangible problem worth addressing that's separate from any word used to capture it), or take issue with the word used, they're free to propose a different term since that's not what's important, but the reality is there isn't another term to accurately describe the phenomenon really. Though it builds on ancient concepts, this kind of discussion itself in this form is rather recent & underdeveloped, and so the language used is, too.
To me the fact that the majority of people (which as we know are non-vegans) don't want to associate with the places in which discourse among vegans occurs, speaks more to people's resistance to the difficult ideas (or even facts) it raises & brings to light, or the contentions it makes, than it does the specific nature of those communities. I think it's inevitable and understandable that people hate vegans & seeing vegans discuss things as veganism poses a threat to their current way of life (a philosophical & moral threat at least, if not a physical one).
That said, there are all different kinds of vegans, and they're just people like anyone. Far from perfect, & flawed in many ways. So there are bound to be toxic vegans, especially on the internet, just as there are in any community or among people in general. I'm not sure that there's a higher prevalence of that phenomenon among vegans or vegan groups, and from my experience vegans are usually (not always) pretty civil with each other. The "drama" comes when talking with non-vegans, usually (not to claim whose fault that is, as it's probably brought about equally by both parties, or just a natural consequence of their fundamental value differences & how those ideas conflict, or rather are not aligned consistently, even if there is significant common ground).
However, I have to be honest that it seems a little wrong to me to suggest that veganism as a philosophy or ethical stance, as independent from any people who adopt or follow it, can be ruined by the actions of one vegan (or even any number of vegans). I'm sorry you feel this way though and I hope you're able to form a more positive impression of it, or rather the vegan community, by whatever means that may be possible. In my experience it's a pretty welcoming community to vegans or those who are ready to make the change to being vegan or are curious about it, but somewhat understandably (but still often regrettably) not so much toward those who argue against the vegan position or tend to defend their choices to "use" animals (for lack of a better way to summarize the behaviors). And, frankly, it seems unreasonable to me to take out your annoyance at what some humans did (vegan or not) on innocent non-human animals. Since your issue is with the vegans and not the deer (or whatever animals), the punishment there is being directed at the wrong individuals, no? Just some food for thought.
Hope I didn't upset you or anything, I was really just trying to be as sincere as I can 😅
No offence taken in any way. Nicely written.
You are right that to be able to have specific, nuanced discussion and move minority positions to equal footing there is often a need for a new lexicon "Carnist" in particular makes it sound to me like there are vegans, and there are people whose entire life is meat. To me, it's a laughable turn of phrase.
With respect to communities and subs, I don't think that it's so cut and dry as "most people aren't vegans, so they necessarily don't like where vegans congregate". That is a little bit reductionist. I suppose you weren't here to see it happen, but this vegan sub basically crapped it's pants because of one power tripping exmod until the technician came and took it over (which may have started with this post actually). As that was happening, the most active users were suggesting jumping to .ml instances and to go to vegantheoryclub which self advertises as anarchy-forward (fine). MAYBE because people like me browse "all" instead of my subs most of the time, being in the main stream leads to too many downvotes to combative--but in group--content for comfort. Even still, maybe we don't have to go hang out with tankies?
As to vegan theory club, I visited several posts to have sane and rational discourse only to have my comments immediately deleted. As I recall, these were not short or offhand dismissive comments but actual attempts to engage. Comments deleted, users banned, and Hamid specifically doing it as the instance admin and leaving "fuck america" footprints. Suffice it to say that it really chapped my ass, and as an American looking down the barrel of another Trump term, I don't like Americans that much either. Between him, beaver, and some other high activity accounts, it is mostly not worth the effort to try to break into these communities.
Considering deer hunting, yes the comments were flippant and I deleted all that yesterday. Still though, where I live hunting is the only population control for deer besides overcrowding and disease. It saves me buying beef, and I assume is a much better way to go than a wasting disease or a high speed encounter with a car.