LolaM said:

Some people seem to do just fine on vegetarian diets. Others, such as myself, don't. Despite carefully planning meals that seemed adequate and healthy on paper, and cramming as many calories down my throat as possible, my weight dropped from about 130 pounds to as low as 109, which is considered unhealthy (if not dangerous) for an adult male of my height. Numbers aside, I didn't feel well, a problem that got worse as time went on. My experience as a vegetarian felt like a reverse version of the movie Super Size Me.

I'm certainly not the only person who has experienced health problems on a vegetarian diet. I've talked to a few doctors (one of whom is quite vegetarian-friendly) about this, and they've all acknowledged that they've observed the issue in their practices.

There are several things about vegetarianism that have left me with a poor opinion of the movement, but IMHO its handling of this issue really harms its credibility. Here's how I see it:

1) Vegetarian advocates usually first insist that a vegetarian diet is suitable for anyone. To support this claim, they usually point to the same single source: a position paper by the American Dietetic Association that states, "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." (In doing so, they invariably gloss over the qualifier "[w]ell-planned.")

2) When confronted with empirical data suggesting that vegetarian diets are unhealthy for some folks, they usually respond with at least one of the following three explanations: a) failure to plan the diet properly; b) failure to stick with the diet (or, in other words, cheating); and c) more time on the diet is needed to "detoxify" the body. (Source: Beyond Vegetarianism.)

To be sure, explanation "a" is probably the reason in some cases. If you take an omnivorous diet and remove the meat (or all animal products) without replacing anything, your diet will likely be unhealthy. But my own experience suggests that "a" doesn't explain all cases. I put a lot of work into planning my diet and enlisted the help of people who know a lot about the subject. Still, I was unhealthy.

Explanation "b" is usually pure speculation. And explanation "c" is pseudoscientific nonsense.

3) I know of only one prominent vegetarian advocate who has conceded that these diets may be unsuitable for some people. Michael Klaper, M.D., is conducting a study to look into the issue. Dr. Klaper candidly writes:

Although a vegan diet can theoretically provide all essential nutrients required by Homo sapiens, it is evident that some people have far greater success than others in sustaining themselves on completely plant-based diets.

. . . .

6. Occasionally, vegan people are encountered who do not look well - underweight, sallow complexion, low energy levels, etc. - despite an apparently healthy diet and lifestyle. What are we observing? A deficiency of dietary nutrients? Dysfunction of digestive secretions? Malabsorption problems? Defective liver detoxification mechanisms? Abnormalities of intestinal mucous viscosity? Other unknown factors? These "failure to thrive" vegan people represent an important subgroup and deserve careful study.

7. People who "used to be vegan," but who report they "feel better when they add some animal protein back into their diet," are also an important subgroup (perhaps the same group as in "6." above?). Are these "unsuccessful vegans" a distinct metabolic category of humans - Homo sapiens who are obligate metabolic carnivores? If so, by which biochemical and physiologic characteristics do they differ from the person who thrives on a purely vegan diet? What is the animal-based nutrient that improves their feelings of well being? (If one accepts the "sympathetic/parasympathetic" model of body types, what does it mean biochemically to be a "sympathetic-dominant omnivore" or a "parasympathetic-dominant vegan" re: metabolic markers, nutritional needs, dietary patterns, etc.?)

4) If science reaches the conclusion some people should not or cannot be vegetarians, then vegetarian advocates have painted themselves into a corner. What are they going to do? Suggest that these people consume less meat or other animal products? No, because a fundamental principle of vegetarianism is total abstention. Recommend that people seek out animal products that are produced in a more humane manner? No, because they've previously insisted that this isn't good enough, and furthermore, that labels such as "free-range" are unregulated and virtually meaningless.

Hey, if a vegetarian diet works for you, enjoy your Gardenburger. I'm not going to hassle you about it. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why I'm ethically obligated to sacrifice my own health for the benefit of others.

tackam said:

Agreed. Also, there's another consideration: some of us have education/experience/credentials that are valuable in fighting a specific wrong. I can't think of anything special that I have to offer an animal advocacy group. But I do have a legal education and a law license, both of which make me quite useful to organizations that support my passion: civil liberties. And so that's where I focus my efforts to make the world a better place.

I've been vegetarian since 1985, and it never ceases to amaze me that people think i'll have this huge agenda that im going to impose upon their lives when it happens to crop up

Because I don't. Never have done, never will do.

You have the right to choose - simple. The only thing that DOES annoy the fuck out of me is some peoples ignorance to how that nice shrink wrapped *insert animal of choice here* got to their plate. My personal p.o.v. is that I do not see animals as 'product'.

Example: I was recently watching that program with Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie and the look on their faces whilst attempting to make suasages was priceless - not to mention the dumb comments Paris made regarding how her favorite meat 'product' got there/came from. But then again, I guess I shouldn't have really been that surprised considering...

So eat your meat, I could care less - just don't be ignorant about what it went through to get there.

Shorty said:

For the record, I live off carbs -pasta, rice, bread. That and fruit are almost all I eat somedays, and I eat a LOT of it. Funny though, I'm healthy and in damn good shape. Couldn't be because I esercise and don't make a pig of myself, could it?

I know that some people are naturally bigger, and that some are overweight due to health reasons, but nothing's going to make me buy those bullshit "carbs me me fat" and "I can't help it" excuses so many have. There's a reason there's an obesity peidemic in the western world, and it's sure as fuck not because of a a carb-laden apple or a slice of whole wheat bread.

Sorry for thread-jacking.

matt said:

I think I'm just not suited to it either (maybe people see this as lazy but..... whatever). I planned my food really well, bought lots of books on veggie/nutrition recipes, tried to mix in lots of things like nuts, seeds, pulses. I didn't really lose any weight but really missed iron in my diet, even though I was eating spinach and stuff. I don't know if its a combination of having other diet problems, being a women (and having some problems with heavy periods - sorry TMI) that made me a bit unsuitable for a veggie diet. I may try it again at some point but I really can't afford to get so run down again at the moment - I have too much to do.
[Edited 7/11/05 7:07am]

matt said:

And the experiment continues....

I had my cholesterol checked on Nov/5/2003, after eating no meat for three months and working toward a vegan diet:

Total: 162
HDL (good) cholesterol: 43

I quit the vegetarian/vegan thing entirely over a year ago. Today, I had another cholesterol test done:

Total: 145
HDL (good) cholesterol: 47

Both sets of numbers are good and would make your doctor happy. (Ideally, the HDL would be higher (60+), but doctors don't seem to consider it a problem unless the number drops below 40.) Still, compare the two sets. My HDL (good) cholesterol went up slightly and my total cholesterol dropped significantly after I ended my vegetarian/vegan experiment.

PeTA et al. imply that going vegetarian/vegan will improve your cholesterol. Indeed, PeTA makes the claim (admittedly without citation to any source whatsoever) that "[i]t is commonly considered medically impossible for a person with cholesterol below 150 to have a heart attack."

What's going on here? If we accept PeTA's claim, I didn't become "heart attack proof" until after I started eating meat/dairy/eggs again. To be sure, this is hardly a scientific study, but these results fly in the face of conventional wisdom that even I accept. (I expected my cholesterol to stay the same or get a little worse.)

Seriously, is there a physician in the house who can shed some light on this?

Do vegetarians have green poop?

matt said:

strange indeed