Any Plant Based Eaters Here? Share Your Story!

[Tristan Loscha]

-

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Interesting. Given over 90% of America eats meat on a near-daily basis, with plenty of beef, and yet anemia somehow still exists in this general population. So unless you're joking the evidence this is wrong is literally in plain sight.

You are avoiding the argument."a lot of meat eaters" is a big argument,also,that they arent girls(no Female),So male anemics are rare,and not for reasons of unavailability of Animal derived Iron.

All disease is more severe in vegetarians and vegans especially,Rate of mental Health Disease is 2-4x higher for the step between Omnivores and plain vegetarians already.
Please no autoimmune Fairy Tales,Plant Based dieting predisposes to Immune-Disease,abating the severity stems from the fact that the Body doesnt have enough energy left to even conduct a proper inflammatory response.Starvation is no cure.

Vegans lost the scientific debate,and are going now a more manipulative way,like playing with words and such.

 

[Goobz]

I was vegan for about a year due to high cholesterol and angina. Cured my angina but was soon looking vegan skinny, grey and old. Now Im on a flexitarian diet and am doing much better.

Lots of those vegan malnourishment videos are of raw fruitarians so I don't think intelligent veganism is as bad as portrayed. Look at the Adventist healthy study 2. Vegans vegetarians and low meat eaters do much better than meat eaters.

Yep. Check the evidence guys, there's plenty out there and it's not on YouTube under titles like "Vegan diets... DANGERS.... EXPOSED!!"

An extreme vegan diet isn't healthy, of course. But a mostly plant based diet is far healthier than a heavy meat diet.

There are such things as sensible plant based diets. Look at the traditional ones. The longest lived populations in the world frequently eat a mostly vegan diet + a small amount of sea food. The longest lived old people in parts of Italy and Greece will tell you that they ate meat a few times a year, at a wedding or special occasion. The vast majority of the world doesn't eat much meat, and doesn't get anemia. The comments here about all the dangers about plant based diets are pretty absurd, imo.

As for b12, that's a vitamin based on cobalt, which used to be obtained from eating dirt. I'd need to check this, but I remember reading that the only reason it's in animal foods now is that they are given b12 supplements, since their natural intake is reduced in farmed animals. So you can either take a supplement, or eat animals that have been given a supplement. It's not some magical "meat vitamin".

For the record, I eat meat. I enjoy it a lot, but I'm trying to eat less since it seems to have negative effects on me. Especially my sleep.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Yep. Check the evidence guys, there's plenty out there and it's not on YouTube under titles like "Vegan diets... DANGERS.... EXPOSED!!"

An extreme vegan diet isn't healthy, of course. But a mostly plant based diet is far healthier than a heavy meat diet.

There are such things as sensible plant based diets. Look at the traditional ones. The longest lived populations in the world frequently eat a mostly vegan diet + a small amount of sea food. The longest lived old people in parts of Italy and Greece will tell you that they ate meat a few times a year, at a wedding or special occasion. The vast majority of the world doesn't eat much meat, and doesn't get anemia. The comments here about all the dangers about plant based diets are pretty absurd, imo.

As for b12, that's a vitamin based on cobalt, which used to be obtained from eating dirt. I'd need to check this, but I remember reading that the only reason it's in animal foods now is that they are given b12 supplements, since their natural intake is reduced in farmed animals. So you can either take a supplement, or eat animals that have been given a supplement. It's not some magical "meat vitamin".

For the record, I eat meat. I enjoy it a lot, but I'm trying to eat less since it seems to have negative effects on me. Especially my sleep.

This is all so very wrong.All Vegans i know with the hollowed out look and changed mentation didnt do maximum nonsense like raw vegan,fruitarianism etc,just the alleged "scientific" vegan nonsense-diet with Tofu and supplements and such.

Cobalt doesnt work,cobalamines were biologically selected for to discriminate against toxic Cobalt conformities.

Most short lived people in the World are Plant based,50 years isnt uncommon,highest living expectancy in the World is Region Monaco,100 years expectancy,lots of rich people,they eat meat all day long,of course.The entire World Hierarchy regarding cultural and economic Progress is graphable along lines of quantity of meat consumption.

Vegans lost the scientific debate,and are now playing with words.Yeah,your sleep,excess manganese is reducing arousal,being toxic to dopaminergic terminals,which helps sleep of course.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

 

[scoobydoo]

For those that have been eating a vegan diet successfully it would be great to see via Cronometer or something on what a typical eating day looks like to you. I tend to agree that consuming meat can be inflammatory and not necessarily needed. However the nutrient density of organ meats and fat soluble vitamins that come along with it seem to be very important to keep in the diet.
missies I struggled with on vegan diet:

No fat soluble vitamins
Hard to get enough calories
SIBO every time I tried to go back to a vegan diet

also wondering your thoughts on the high PUFA content found in most vegan protein sources - is this something you avoid or not concerned about?

 

[Sulcuscentralis]

Plant iron is poorly absorbed. Even heme iron isn’t rocketing up iron stores as I’ve seen in myself.

I used to chat with a guy who used freakin androgenic steroids and YET became anemic on like testosterone trestolone and whatnot. Very annoying vegan advocate. Got a full blown lymphoma at 25yo with no family history. Couldn’t squat 300lbs. Weakest lifter on juice I’ve ever seen. Beard alopecia. White hairs. Started supplementing iron of course. With zinc. With Dha “from algae”. With “essential” aminos. With B12. With creatine. With taurine.

steak from grass finished beef is always the answer instead of popping 153783 pills but you think they care? Besides, sustainable farming, on top of being neutral environmentally, kills way less animals and wildlife (restores it, in fact) compared to monocrops which makes it more ethical than vegan nonsense lol. 2 cows feed me for 12 months. How many animals vegans have never heard of get killed for their precious 250kcal avocados?

I understand skepticism towards carnivorism because, duh liver glycogen duh vitamin C, but veganism is far, far worse for health. It’s a massive and very unfortunate joke. Kinda sad.

Radical vegans can't seem to grasp the fact that traditional farming is great for the environment and gives the best quality meat and therefore health to us.

 

[Goobz]

This is all so very wrong.All Vegans i know with the hollowed out look and changed mentation didnt do maximum nonsense like raw vegan,fruitarianism etc,just the alleged "scientific" vegan nonsense-diet with Tofu and supplements and such.

Cobalt doesnt work,cobalamines were biologically selected for to discriminate against toxic Cobalt conformities.

Most short lived people in the World are Plant based,50 years isnt uncommon,highest living expectancy in the World is Region Monaco,100 years expectancy,lots of rich people,they eat meat all day long,of course.The entire World Hierarchy regarding cultural and economic Progress is graphable along lines of quantity of meat consumption.

Vegans lost the scientific debate,and are now playing with words.Yeah,your sleep,excess manganese is reducing arousal,being toxic to dopaminergic terminals,which helps sleep of course.

Well, as I said, I wasn't sure about the B12 stuff so you may very well be right about the cobalamine stuff. And extreme diets aren't healthy. Imo veganism is probably too extreme, there should be some fish in there too.

But anyway, your other claims are not in any way scientific.

Correlation does not cause causation. A pretty important point to remember. Being richer is correlated with living longer. Perhaps being rich is also correlated with eating more meat (i haven't checked, but sounds logical). But that doesn't mean that eating meat causes you to live longer. That's absurd. By that logic, it would be equally fair to conclude that because eating meat is linked with being richer, that eating meat also... causes you to become rich!

You have to control for such variables as socio economic status on health outcomes. Do you really think that might apply to, oh I don't know... Monaco?!? I.e. the richest place on the entire planet?!? It's also an absolute haven for expats from everywhere - i.e. people who have absolutely nothing in common with each other, apart from their large sums of money. So maybe, just maybe, it's the large sums of money that is helping them live longer, not the meat they may or may not spend it on.

Anyway the actual studies have been done, and while the vegans may not have won the debate (might be too extreme), the heavy meat eaters have certainly lost it the most. A study a few years back linked eating large amounts of meat in middle age to the equivalent of being a smoker in terms of risk of disease and reductions in life expectancy. Yes it's only linked at this stage, but this study actually controlled for all the other variables. These studies agree with observations about long lived populations. In Okinawa Japan, you better go tell them that their traditional diet with Tofu is "nonsense". Check their life expectancy. Loma Linda California, where the 7th Day Adventist residents are also vegetarian, have an average life expectancy ten years longer than other Californian people nearby.

Anyway the studies have been done. The pathways are becoming clearer by the day. The IGF / mTOR pathway gets activated by meat and this has been extensively studied. Everyone who becomes a plant based eater probably already knows all this of course, and I remember your strong desire to ignore the studies I posted last time about periodic fasting, because it didn't agree with your ideas. So yeah, maybe I'm wasting my time responding here.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Radical vegans can't seem to grasp the fact that traditional farming is great for the environment and gives the best quality meat and therefore health to us.

False Consciousness-Veganism is emerging out of remnants of misanthropic and psychopathic Religious Programming.

It is a highly byzantinic,controlling,hidden psychological Diet,were regards to welfare and nutrition of the subjected are eliminated to the utmost degree.Veganism lost the scientific debate,yet advances unimpressed?

They play with words and false equivalency,shaming young people out of their deserved Future,it is transforming.Reduction of Fluid Intelligence seems to be a Catalyst for approach to total control and accepted brutalization of subjected in totalitarian Political Schemes.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Well, as I said, I wasn't sure about the B12 stuff so you may very well be right about the cobalamine stuff. And extreme diets aren't healthy. Imo veganism is probably too extreme, there should be some fish in there too.

But anyway, your other claims are not in any way scientific.

Correlation does not cause causation. A pretty important point to remember. Being richer is correlated with living longer. Perhaps being rich is also correlated with eating more meat (i haven't checked, but sounds logical). But that doesn't mean that eating meat causes you to live longer. That's absurd. By that logic, it would be equally fair to conclude that because eating meat is linked with being richer, that eating meat also... causes you to become rich!

You have to control for such variables as socio economic status on health outcomes. Do you really think that might apply to, oh I don't know... Monaco?!? I.e. the richest place on the entire planet?!? It's also an absolute haven for expats from everywhere - i.e. people who have absolutely nothing in common with each other, apart from their large sums of money. So maybe, just maybe, it's the large sums of money that is helping them live longer, not the meat they may or may not spend it on.

Anyway the actual studies have been done, and while the vegans may not have won the debate (might be too extreme), the heavy meat eaters have certainly lost it the most. A study a few years back linked eating large amounts of meat in middle age to the equivalent of being a smoker in terms of risk of disease and reductions in life expectancy. Yes it's only linked at this stage, but this study actually controlled for all the other variables. These studies agree with observations about long lived populations. In Okinawa Japan, you better go tell them that their traditional diet with Tofu is "nonsense". Check their life expectancy. Loma Linda California, where the 7th Day Adventist residents are also vegetarian, have an average life expectancy ten years longer than other Californian people nearby.

Anyway the studies have been done. The pathways are becoming clearer by the day. The IGF / mTOR pathway gets activated by meat and this has been extensively studied. Everyone who becomes a plant based eater probably already knows all this of course, and I remember your strong desire to ignore the studies I posted last time about periodic fasting, because it didn't agree with your ideas. So yeah, maybe I'm wasting my time responding here.

"That's absurd. By that logic, it would be equally fair to conclude that because eating meat is linked with being richer, that eating meat also... causes you to become rich!"


Indeed,i see meat and fishconsumption and Animal produce in general as an predisposing Factor for high Intelligence,which heightens the likelihood in becoming rich,or another endeavour were intelligence is required.


"people who have absolutely nothing in common with each other, apart from their large sums of money"


I wager that they have Money in common,and to eat very high amounts of meat,fish and Animalproduce,which they can pay for with their commonly shared high money commonality.


"Loma Linda California, where the 7th Day Adventist residents are also vegetarian, have an average life expectancy ten years longer than other Californian people nearby."


They are cheagans,which means they are eating meat,otherwise it would be too degenerating,they are phony about it.They do not smoke,and do not drink.There you go.A lot of falsehoods are coming from
7th Day Adventists,which are behind the false-positve vegan-propaganda.Loma Linda is part of a Fake-News University-Ring.Most Pro-vegan and Pro-vegetarianism Propaganda are coming from 7th Day Adventists and associated outlets,its like a bad dream,conspiracy-level actually.I know what they are:they are the ideologic decoy for Big-Grain and Big-Soy.Even here,far away in dreaming Germany,they produce my Cornflakes!!They are the Grain-Church!!!


"Everyone who becomes a plant based eater probably already knows all this of course, and I remember your strong desire to ignore the studies I posted last time about periodic fasting, because it didn't agree with your ideas. So yeah, maybe I'm wasting my time responding here."


You are just wrong in a couple of your assessments,hence the tendency for disagreement.

 

[CLASH]

Correlation does not cause causation. A pretty important point to remember. Being richer is correlated with living longer. Perhaps being rich is also correlated with eating more meat (i haven't checked, but sounds logical). But that doesn't mean that eating meat causes you to live longer. That's absurd. By that logic, it would be equally fair to conclude that because eating meat is linked with being richer, that eating meat also... causes you to become rich!

You have to control for such variables as socio economic status on health outcomes. Do you really think that might apply to, oh I don't know... Monaco?!? I.e. the richest place on the entire planet?!? It's also an absolute haven for expats from everywhere - i.e. people who have absolutely nothing in common with each other, apart from their large sums of money. So maybe, just maybe, it's the large sums of money that is helping them live longer, not the meat they may or may not spend it on.

Anyway the actual studies have been done, and while the vegans may not have won the debate (might be too extreme), the heavy meat eaters have certainly lost it the most. A study a few years back linked eating large amounts of meat in middle age to the equivalent of being a smoker in terms of risk of disease and reductions in life expectancy. Yes it's only linked at this stage, but this study actually controlled for all the other variables. These studies agree with observations about long lived populations. In Okinawa Japan, you better go tell them that their traditional diet with Tofu is "nonsense". Check their life expectancy. Loma Linda California, where the 7th Day Adventist residents are also vegetarian, have an average life expectancy ten years longer than other Californian people nearby.

Anyway the studies have been done. The pathways are becoming clearer by the day. The IGF / mTOR pathway gets activated by meat and this has been extensively studied. Everyone who becomes a plant based eater probably already knows all this of course, and I remember your strong desire to ignore the studies I posted last time about periodic fasting, because it didn't agree with your ideas. So yeah, maybe I'm wasting my time responding here.

Please post the study you mention.

From what I understand the Okinawans adopted a more "plant based diet" after the US military shelled their island during WWII and wiped out the large animal populations leaving mainly purple sweet potatoes and plants as the major food options. With this in mind its hard to make any claims as to centenarian status of the population, especially considering that prior to WWII the okinawan population was supposedly fond of fat pork. The extension of this fondness of pork is seen in the current culture with the elevation of spam to a delicacy status on the island.

Comparing people who dont drink, dont smoke, and have a community structure to the general american population and then implying their plant based diet is the cause of their on average 10 year increase in lifespan is about as correlational as @Tristan Loscha 's statement that you just refuted. The mainstream american diet has decreased in red meat consumption overall, as well as ruminant fats and dairy/ dairy fats, replacing these with vegetable oils, chicken products, agribusiness grains, refined sugars and industrial food additives. I find it hard to believe that researchers are able to tease out the components of the diet when comparing meat eaters, to non-meat eaters; both broad categories in and of themselves. Considering the massive campaign for veganism and plant based diets, I also find much of the research about plant based diets, particularly vegetarian and vegan diets questionable. Especially considering that many studies that discuss plant base tout the benefits of polyunsaturated fats, whole grains, and raw vegetables.

Furthermore beyond the associative population studies, when looking at human anatomy and physiology I find it hard believe any arguments for a vegan or vegetarian diet.

So we have one theoretical pathway for mTor/ IGF-1, which extends lifespan in what yeasts, c. elegans, and rats? I'd like to see how the studies pan out in animals that are specifically adapted to consuming meat such as humans. Much of the life extensions ideas I've seen in c.elegans and worms induce a hibernation state to extend lifespan which isn't ideal at all if extended out to humans.

With this said, I'm not against a plant based diet, but this depends on the definetion of said diet. I personally eat a plant based diet by volume, however by calories my diet would mostly be animal foods. I also think the only plant foods worth eating are fruits, some specific vegetables, some specific nuts and tubers. I dont really think much of the other plants, such as grains, legumes, most nuts and seeds and many vegetables are worth eating.

 

[Tristan Loscha]

Long Rant about Veganism funded by radical career 7th day Adventists,and the whole Hog Nutrition Wise,copied from Reddit:







Nutrition

• Vegans lie to claim that health organizations agree on their diet:
  
  1. There are lots of health authorities that explicitly advise against vegan diets, especially for children.
  2. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was founded by Seventh-day Adventists, an evangelistic vegan religion that owns meat replacement companies. Every author of their position paper is a career vegan, two of them are selling diet books that are cited in the paper. One author and one reviewer are Adventists who work for universities that publicly admit to have a religious agenda. Another author went vegan for ethical reasons. They explicitly report "no potential conflict of interest". Their claims about infants and athletes are not based on real-world evidence, but speculation (they cite no study following vegan infants from birth to childhood) and they don't even mention potentially problematic nutrients like Vitamin K or Carnitine.
  3. Many, if not all, of the institutions that agree with the AND are just echoing their position or also have Adventists write their papers. E.g. the Dietitians of Canada wrote their statement with the AND, the Dietitians Association of Australia only cites Adventist sources, the USDA has the AND Adventist reviewer in their guidelines committee, the British Dietetic Association's position was written with the Vegan Society and all authors of the American Institute of Cancer Research are Adventists.
  4. In the EU, all nutritional supplements (including B12) are by law required to state that they should not be used as a substitute for a balanced and varied diet.
  5. In Belgium, parents can get imprisoned for imposing a vegan diet on children.
• The supposed science around veganism is not as great as made out to be. Nutrition science is in its infancy and the "best" studies on vegans have them fill out indisputably and fatally flawed food questionnaires that ask them what they eat in a whole year and then assume they do it the following years aswell:
  
  1. They only study the people that did not quit the diet.
  2. Vegans aren't even vegan. They frequently cheat on their diet and lie about it.
  3. Self-imposed dieting is linked to binge eating disorder, which makes people forget and misreport about eating the food they crave.
  4. The vast majority of studies favoring "vegan" diets are conducted by scientists affiliated with Loma Linda University, which belongs to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They show contrasting results when compared to every other study. The publications of common researchers like Joan Sabate, Winston Craig (reviewers and authors of the AND position paper, btw) or dozens of others show that they dedicate their research to confirm their religious message. They brag about their global influence on diet, yet generally don't disclose this conflict of interest. They have silenced people who promote low-carbohydrate diets.
  5. 80-100% of observational nutritional studies are proven wrong in controlled trials. 10% of them even point into the opposite direction.
• Vegans use observational studies with small relative risks to call animal products unhealthy:
  
  1. They often mention a particular study that associates milk with mortality risk and hip fractures, but not even a single observational meta-analysis that cites this study comes to the same conclusion.
  2. Milk is not "full of estrogen" either. A whole gallon contains 242 nanograms of estrogen, which is insignificant compared to human production and over 1000 times less than daily oral replacement doses.
  3. Vegans like to say that meat causes cancer by citing the WHO's cancer agency. But the report actually says there's no evaluation on poultry/fish and that red meat has not been established as a cause of cancer. More importantly, their statements have been criticized by Gordon Guyatt (founder of evidence-based medicine, pescetarian) for drawing conclusions from cherry-picked epidemiology. The studies they use specifically reference other papers that show protective effects and were excluded in the report. A third of the committee voting against meat were vegetarians. Before the report was released, 23 cancer experts from eight countries looked at the same data and concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and unclear.
  4. Despite being demonized by our guidelines, dietary cholesterol has never been proven to cause heart disease.
  5. Here's a short write-up of large, government-funded clinical trials to oppose every claim made to blame meat and saturated fat for diabetes, cancer and CVD. Note that these have been ignored by both WHO and guidelines.
  6. Walter Willett, former 26 year long chair of Harvard School of Public Health, has severe conflicts of interest that he rarely, if ever, discloses. He published hundreds of epidemiological anti-meat papers (e.g. the Nurses' Health Studies), tried to censor publications that oppose his views and wants to deemphasize the importance of RCTs because he knows they can't confirm his findings. He has financial links to plant oil, nut, fruit, vegetable and pharmaceutical industries. He is affiliated with Blue Zones, True Health Initiative (Frank Hu, David Katz), EAT-Lancet and Lifestyle Medicine (Ornish, Adventists).
• Popular sources that promote "plant-based diets" are actually just vegan propaganda in disguise:
  
  1. Blue zones are bull****. The longest living populations paradoxically consume the highest amount of meat. Buettner cherry-picks and ignores areas that have both high consumption of animal products and high life expectancies (Hong Kong, Switzerland, Spain, France, ... ). He praises Adventists for their health, but doesn't do the same for Mormons. Among others, he misrepresents the Okinawa diet by using data from a post WWII famine. The number of centenarians in blue zones is likely based on birth certificate fraud. The franchise also belongs to the SDA church now.
  2. The website "nutritionfacts.org" is run by a vegan doctor who is known to misinterpret and cherry-pick his data.
  3. EAT-Lancet is pushing a nutrient deficient "planetary health diet" because it's essentially a global convention of vegans. Their founder and president is the Norwegian billionaire, hypocrite and animal rights activist Gunhild Stordalen. In 2017, they co-launched FReSH - a partnership of fertilizer, pesticide, processed food and flavouring companies.
  4. The China Study, aka the Vegan Bible, has been debunked by hundreds of people including Campbell himself in his actual peer-reviewed publications on the study.
  5. The same goes for "documentaries" like Game Changers.
  6. The Guardian (a pro-vegan newspaper) has received two grants totaling $1.78m from an investor of Impossible Foods.
• A vegan diet is not sustainable for the average person. Ex-vegans vastly outnumber vegans. Notably, most vegans are short-term vegans. Here is a survey with common reasons for quitting. TLDR: 23% of people had health concerns, 37% cravings, 63% social issues, 58% ideological disagreement, 43% difficulties staying 'pure'. There are likely more people that left veganism with health concerns than there are vegans. 82% of those who had health problems saw improvements after eating meat again.
  
  
• A widespread lie is that the vegan diet is "clinically proven to reverse heart disease". The studies by Ornish, Pritikin and Esselstyn are all made to sell their diet, but rely on confounding factors like exercise, medication or previous bypass surgeries (Esselstyn had nearly all of them exercise while pretending it was optional). All of them have tiny sample size, extremely poor design and have never been replicated in large clinical trials, which made Ornish suggest that we should discard the scientific method. None of the diets were vegan.
  
  
• Vegan diets are devoid of several nutrients. Some essential nutrients (Vitamin K2, EPA/DHA, Vitamin A) can only be obtained because they are converted from other sources, which is inefficient, limited or poor depending on the individual. Omega-3 EPA/DHA from animal products is linked to reduced risk of heart disease and stroke, but converting it from ALA (plant sourced) does not seem to provide the same anti-inflammatory effects. Taurine is essential for many people with special needs, while Creatine supplementation improves cognitive function in those who don't eat meat.
  
  
• The US supplement industry is poorly regulated and has a history of selling snake oil and spiking their products with drugs. Vitamin B complexes were tainted with anabolic steroids in the past. Supplements and fortified foods can cause mineral and vitamin poisoning, while natural foods generally don't.
  
  
• Restrictive dieting has psychological consequences including aggressive behavior, negative emotionality, loss of libido, prioritizing food over relationships, difficulties with concentration, higher anxiety measures and reduced self-esteem. There is an extremely strong link between meat abstention and mental disorders. While it's unknown what causes what, the vegan diet is low in or devoid of several important brain nutrients.
  
  
• A vegan diet alone fulfills the criteria of an eating disorder.
  
  
• Patrik Baboumian, the vegan symbol of strength, lied about holding a world record that actually belongs to Brian Shaw. Patrik has never even been invited to World's Strongest Man. He dropped the weight during his "world record", which was done at a vegetarian food festival where he was the only competitor. His unofficial deadlift PR is 360kg, but the current world record is 500kg. We can compare his height-relative strength using the Wilks Score and see that he is being completely dwarfed by Eddie Hall (208 vs 273). Patrik also lives on supplements. He pops about 25 pills a day to fix common vegan nutrient deficiencies and gets over 60% of his protein intake by drinking shakes.
  
  
• Here's a summary on almost every pro athlete that either stopped being vegan, got injured, has only been vegan a couple of years, retired or was falsely promoted as vegan.
  
  
• Historically, humans always needed animal products, are hunters and adapted to eating cooked meat. There has never been a recorded culture (or even generation) of humans that was able to survive without animal foods. Isotopic evidence shows that the first modern humans ate lots of meat and were the only natural predator of adult mammoths. Most of their historic technology and cave paintings revolved around hunting animals. Our abilities to throw and sweat likely developed because of hunting. The vegan diet is species-inappropriate and born out of ideology.
  
  1. If humans were herbivores, they would be the only ones that can't digest cellulose, but can absorb heme-iron and live on a 90%+ meat diet over several generations.
  2. The cooked starch hypothesis that vegans use is extremely inconsistent and easy to debunk.
• Other anti-vegan copypastas:
  
  1. Veganism slaughter house (80+ papers).
  2. 70+ papers comparing vegans to non-vegans.
  3. Scrolls and tomes against the Indoctrinated.
  4. Zotero folder of 120+ papers.

Environment

• Livestock is not a significant greenhouse factor. The EPA estimates that all agriculture produces about 10% of US greenhouse emissions, while animal agriculture is about half of that. Other developed countries, like Germany, UK and even Australia all have similarly low emissions from agriculture. Vegans always use global estimations that are heavily skewed by developing countries with inefficient subsistence agriculture. They also keep on using an outdated and retracted source that compared lifecycle to direct emissions.
  
  
• Many environmental claims made by vegans are heavily flawed because they use incomplete lifecycle models where they assume that we grow crops to feed animals, but in reality 86% of livestock feed is inedible by humans. They consume forage, food-waste and crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden. 13% of animal feed consists of potentially edible low-quality grains, which make up a third of global cereal (not total crop) production. All US beef cattle spend the majority of their life on pasture and have a positive net protein contribution even when grain-finished (0.6 to 1). FAO considers livestock crucial for food security and does not support veganism at all.
  
  
• Comparing plant to animal foods is deceiving because livestock provides many actually useful by-products that are needed for medicine, crop fertilization, clothing and public water safety. Vegans are in general very dishonest when comparing foods, as seen here where they compare 1kg of beef (2600 kcal, 260g protein) to 1kg of tomatoes (180 kcal, 9g protein). Per-calorie comparisons are usually just as flawed because they ignore essential nutrients and actually favour sugar canes over everything else.
  
  
• Veganism is bad use of land and can't even feed the US population. 57% of land used for feed is unsuitable for crops. While it does require more land, it can sequester more carbon and has a four times lower rate of soil loss per unit area than cropland. Regenerative agriculture restores topsoil, is scalable, efficient and has high animal welfare. Even big names like Nestle and Kellogg are investing in it for long-term profit. On the other hand, removing livestock would create a food supply incapable of supporting the US population’s nutritional requirements due to lack of vitamin A, vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium and essential fatty acids - while stripping us of all their by-products. A full lifecycle model that accounts for all consequential factors has never been made by anyone.
  
  
• Water usage is possibly the most ridiculous way vegans deceive. The water footprint is divided into green (sourced from precipitation) and blue (sourced from the surface). Water scarcity is largely dependent on blue water use, which is why experts use lifecycle models. Vegan infographics always portray beef as a massive water hog by counting the rain that falls on the pasture. 96% of beef's water usage is green and it can even be produced without any blue water at all. The crops leading to the most depletion are wheat (22%), rice (17%), sugar (7%) and cotton (7%).
  
  
• Going vegan won't do ***t for the Amazon rainforest because the majority of Brazil's beef exports go to China or Hong Kong. The US or European countries each account for 2% or less. Soybeans are grown for oil; animals just get the by-products that make up ~80% of the plant. Also, Brazil is a misrepresentative and atypical industry. On a global scale, cattle ranching accounts for 12%, commercial crops for 20% and subsistence farming for 48% of deforestation. The US use less forest land for grazing than 70 years ago.
  
  
• Livestock is not routinely supplemented with vitamin B12. Cows that consume cobalt (found in grass, which is free of B12) produce it with gut bacteria in the rumen. Gastrointestinal animals (including humans) initially can't absorb it, but instead excrete it and can then eat their own ***t. B12 is in the soil because of excretions - ground bacteria exist but have never been shown to be the main source. Plants are devoid of B12 because competing bacteria consume it, not because of soil depletion. The "90% of B12 supplements go to livestock"-figure...
  
  1. is bull**** that vegans keep on parroting. It originates from an article that calls humans herbivores, with no source.
  2. is misleading and can't quantify how many animals are actually given B12.
  3. ignores the fact that you can get B12 from seafood and venison. A can of sardines provides 3x the RDA.
  4. doesn't make sense because animals on unnatural diets can simply be fed cobalt instead of lab-manifactured B12 supplements. Cows also destroy most of a B12 supplement in their gut before it can be absorbed.

Socioeconomics

• Veganism is a privilege that is enabled by globalization. They usually say that meat consumption correlates with income. This might be true, but it doesn't reflect the vegan demographic as voluntary veganism exclusively exists in first-world societies. Less than 1% of Indians are vegan. Jains, who are similar to vegans, are the wealthiest Indian community and even they still drink milk. In fact, India is a great example of why veganism doesn't work because they've tried it for thousands of years and still couldn't do it. Even Gandhi was an ex-vegan that warned them how dangerous the diet is.

Ethics

• Veganism is an insidious self-harm ideology that fundamentally promotes the abstinence from anything that's optional. For example, vaccines are not vegan. And just like meat, some people have already considered them unnecessary. Likewise, public communities also encourage people to force their carnivorous pets on a vegan diet to "avoid" animal cruelty.
  
  
• Vegans are not raising enough awareness about deficiencies and as a result harm humans, especially children. B12 deficiency can cause irreversible neurological damage, psychosis and is hard to notice. 10-50% of vegans say they don't even take any supplements.
  
  
• Vegan diets are more dependent on human slavery because they rely on a globalist lifestyle. Many crops, especially nuts, oils, grains and seeds that they have to include in higher quantities to make up for nutrients in animal products, in particular fats, are to a large extent child labor products from developing countries. 108 million children work in agriculture. Cheese replacements (guess who's responsible for that) are usually made with cashews, which burn the fingers of the women who have to remove the shells. A larger list of examples can be found here.
  
  
• Vegans have never been able to define or measure that their diet causes less deaths/cruelty than an omnivorous one. They are ignorantly contributing to an absolute bloodbath of trillions of worms, crickets, grasshoppers, snails, frogs, turtles, rats, squirrels, possum, raccoons, moles, rabbits, boars, deer, 75% of the world's insect biomass, half of all bird species and 20,000 humans per year. Two grass-fed cows are enough to feed someone for a year and, if managed properly, can restore biodiversity. The textbook vegan excuse where they say that "most crops are grown for livestock" and use only mice deaths, inflated feed conversion ratios (20:1 instead of 3:1 according to FAO) and favourable statistics (per-calorie comparison) is nonsense because:
  
  1. The majority of animal feed is either low-maintenance forage or waste-products of human food production.
  2. It literally shows that grass-fed beef kills fewer animals.
• Vegans likely exploit more animals than the average person. The Vegan Society has an ethical stance against beekeeping, but many commercial crops require to be pollinated by domestic bees that are forced to breed, shipped around and then worked to death. It's basically impossible to have a nutritionally complete vegan diet without forced pollination, but fodder crops do not exploit bees. As a result, human food crops kill five times as many bees as all livestock slaughter combined and directly support honey production (taking excess honey is necessary for colony health). Vegans should also call around and make sure that their seasonally changing food exporters don't rely on insects, terriers, sheep, ducks, organic fertilizers or anything from developing countries where animal labor is still common.
  
  
• Ethical veganism aims for the complete extinction of domestic animals to avoid any and all "exploitation". This is not even an exaggeration because organizations like PETA proudly state this to be their goal and will steal and euthanize other people's pets. Livestock animals can live better lives than in their natural habitat. They engage in a symbiotic relationship that grants them shelter, protection from predators, lots of food, medical care, low stress and a painless death. Animal rights actually conflict with animal welfare because they want to remove animal use altogether. Put differently, vegans claim to support animal welfare but can hardly even do so with their consumer power. What they are doing is killing off the last family farms while making sure the intensive ones survive.
  
  
• The average vegan is, based on their demographic, a New York hipster that has never seen a farm in their live. Animals are not being tortured everywhere. Brainwashing and "undercover" videos have already been staged and are misrepresentations of government-inspected industry standards or recorded in third-world countries (Dominion straight up lies about pigs in slaugherhouses getting no water - it's required by law). Here's some actual industrial slaughterhouse footage of Beef, Turkey and Pork. For comparison, rodenticides are intentionally made to drain the life out of rats over three days so that they can't figure out what killed them. They also spread to wild animals.
  
  
• Vegans love to anthropomorphize animals by giving them concepts that they don't care about, or even enjoy. Sexual coercion ("rape") is normal procreation. Cows are being inseminated because it's more comfortable than being pounded by a 3,000 lbs bull. They will even milk themselves when given the possibility. Pigs don't mind eating their own babies or getting shot. Some animals, like dogs, enjoy being "exploited" and "enslaved". A lot of what is done to livestock actually applies to pets aswell, which many vegans do not seem to mind. (castration, breeding, separation from mother)
  
  
• The reputation of vegans is based exactly on how they are noticed in public. Humans evolved to have predatory behaviour and many people enjoy homesteading, hunting or fishing. Vegan activists frequently bother society and disrespect human biology - with thousands of years of history - for their arbitrarily chosen set of morals. There are actual animal rights terrorist groups that have sent bombs and stalked children, which they justify with it being done "in the name of veganism". Therefore, a very good reason to avoid veganism is simply because someone doesn't want to be associated with a cult.
  

Philosophy

• The definition that vegans pride themselves with is a laughing stock because it allows you to call virtually everybody vegan. You can call vegetarians vegan, you can call the Inuit vegan - you can even call carnivores vegan. This definition also doesn't describe vegans at all because they tend to excommunicate people who "were never really vegan" after destroying their health for the ideology. Vegans are just people who choose not to eat or use animal products for nutritional, environmental or ethical reasons.
  
  
• Peter Singer, the most notorious vegan philosopher, thinks we should rape disabled people, argues in favour of bestiality and popularized the misanthropic idea of "speciecism" which compromises the relative moral status of humans. Unsurprisingly, animal rights activists themselves are the single best example for this because they frequently insult minorities and crime victims by comparing them to livestock with analogies to rape, murder, slavery or holocaust. The most ironic part is that vegans are speciecists themselves because they still value their own existence and cows more than insect lives.
  
  
• If insects did have lower moral status and it's fine to systematically and unavoidably kill them, then it could also be considered to farm them for human consumption. The same goes for bivalves since there's about as much evidence that they feel pain as there is for plants. The fact that vegans still try so hard to make up reasons not to shows that veganism is indeed a diet.
  
  
• A vegan diet itself is not even vegan because it's extremely im-"practicable" for humans to follow it. Adopting it is an opportunity cost of time, research and money that could be utilized in a better way and even then is not guaranteed to be efficient because it values purity over outcome. The aggressive, perfectionist stigma makes veganism unattractive and is the reason why the majority of people quit: Perfect is the enemy of good. A vegan diet makes it harder, if not impossible, to follow consumer approaches that are actually productive such as buying local, seasonal or supporting regenerative agriculture.
  

List of known nutrients that vegan diets either can't get at all or are typically low in, especially when uninformed and for people with special needs. Vegans will always say that "you can get X nutrient from Y specific source", but a full meal plan with sufficient quantities will look completely absurd.

1. Vitamin B12
2. Vitamin B6 (Pyridoxal, Pyridoxamine)
3. Choline
4. Niacin (bio availability)
5. Vitamin B2
6. Vitamin A (Retinol, variable Carotene conversion)
7. Vitamin D3 (sedentary population, winter)
8. Vitamin K2 MK-4 (variable K1 conversion)
9. Omega-3 (EPA/DHA; conversion from ALA is inefficient, limited, variable, inhibited by LA and insufficient for pregnancy)
10. Iron (bio availability)
11. Zinc (bio availability)
12. Calcium
13. Selenium
14. Iodine
15. Protein (per calorie, digestibility, Lysine, Leucine, elderly people, athletes)
16. Creatine (conditionally essential)
17. Carnitine (conditionally essential)
18. Carnosine
19. Taurine (conditionally essential)
20. CoQ10
21. Conjugated linoleic acid
22. Cholesterol
23. Arachidonic Acid (conditionally essential)

Common vegan debate tactics/fallacies:

• No true Scotsman: "84% of vegans were never really vegan."
  
  
• No true Scotsman: "Veganism is not a diet, it's an ethical philosophy. No true vegan supports slavery, has a child, vaccinates, drives a car or owns a cat ..."
  
  
• Definist fallacy: "... as far as is possible and practicable."
  
  
• Special pleading: "It's never ethical to harm animals for food, except when we 'accidentally' hire planes to rain poison from the sky." (You can trigger their cognitive dissonance by pointing that out. Or make them admit that meat is moral)
  
  
• Special pleading: "Anyone who doesn't agree with my ideology has cognitive dissonance."
  
  
• Nirvana fallacy: "There's no point in eating animal products because you can just have a perfect vegan diet, supplements and genetic predisposition."
  
  
• Nirvana fallacy: "Animal welfare is stupid because everyone can just go vegan instead."
  
  
• Argument from ignorance: NameTheTrait.
  
  
• Proof by example: "Some people say they are vegan. Therefore, everyone can be vegan."
  
  
• Appeal to authority: "WHO says meat causes cancer."
  
  
• Anecdotal evidence: "I've been vegan for 20 years and never took any supplements."
  
  
• Loaded question: "Why do you support the unnecessary torture of animals?"
  
  
• JAQing off: This is the way vegans convert other people. Since their ethical arguments are logically inconsistent, they always want you to justify eating meat by asking tons of loaded questions. Cults often employ this tactic to recruit new members.
  
  
• False analogy: "Dogs are also animals, you wouldn't eat your dog either."
  
  
• Fallacy fallacy: "Evolution is a fallacy."
  
  
• False dilemma: "Producing only livestock is less sustainable than producing only crops, so we should only produce crops."
  
  
• Proof by example: "All farms look like the ones in Dominion."
  
  
• False cause: Using observational studies to say that meat causes cancer/CVD.
  
  
• Texas sharpshooter fallacy: "80% of the Amazon's soy mass is fed to livestock. Therefore, 80% of all crops are grown as animal feed."
  
  
• Appeal to novelty: "We don't need animal products anymore because we now have supplements."
  
  
• Appeal to emotion: Usage of words exclusive to humans (rape, murder, slavery, ... ) in the context of animals.
  
  
• Faulty generalization: Highlighting mediocre athletes to refute the fact that vegans are underrepresented in elite sports.
  
  
• Moving the goalposts: Whenever a vegan is cornered, they will dodge and change the subject to one of their other pillars (Ethics, Health, Environment or Sustainability) as seen here.
  

 

[postman]

Ray really dislikes beans https://www.toxinless.com/ray-peat-the-bean-syndrome.pdf

 

[Tristan Loscha]

The entire Vegetarianism-Veganism movement is funded and ideologically backed by career Adventists,who are engaged with the grain industry?What the hell?

 

[Indicatrice]

I was vegan for about a year due to high cholesterol and angina. Cured my angina but was soon looking vegan skinny, grey and old. Now Im on a flexitarian diet and am doing much better.

Lots of those vegan malnourishment videos are of raw fruitarians so I don't think intelligent veganism is as bad as portrayed. Look at the Adventist healthy study 2. Vegans vegetarians and low meat eaters do much better than meat eaters.

Those studies are very bad. "Meat eaters" don't derive that many calories from meat.

 

[Goobz]

Please post the study you mention.

From what I understand the Okinawans adopted a more "plant based diet" after the US military shelled their island during WWII and wiped out the large animal populations leaving mainly purple sweet potatoes and plants as the major food options. With this in mind its hard to make any claims as to centenarian status of the population, especially considering that prior to WWII the okinawan population was supposedly fond of fat pork. The extension of this fondness of pork is seen in the current culture with the elevation of spam to a delicacy status on the island.

Comparing people who dont drink, dont smoke, and have a community structure to the general american population and then implying their plant based diet is the cause of their on average 10 year increase in lifespan is about as correlational as @Tristan Loscha 's statement that you just refuted. The mainstream american diet has decreased in red meat consumption overall, as well as ruminant fats and dairy/ dairy fats, replacing these with vegetable oils, chicken products, agribusiness grains, refined sugars and industrial food additives. I find it hard to believe that researchers are able to tease out the components of the diet when comparing meat eaters, to non-meat eaters; both broad categories in and of themselves. Considering the massive campaign for veganism and plant based diets, I also find much of the research about plant based diets, particularly vegetarian and vegan diets questionable. Especially considering that many studies that discuss plant base tout the benefits of polyunsaturated fats, whole grains, and raw vegetables.

Furthermore beyond the associative population studies, when looking at human anatomy and physiology I find it hard believe any arguments for a vegan or vegetarian diet.

So we have one theoretical pathway for mTor/ IGF-1, which extends lifespan in what yeasts, c. elegans, and rats? I'd like to see how the studies pan out in animals that are specifically adapted to consuming meat such as humans. Much of the life extensions ideas I've seen in c.elegans and worms induce a hibernation state to extend lifespan which isn't ideal at all if extended out to humans.

With this said, I'm not against a plant based diet, but this depends on the definetion of said diet. I personally eat a plant based diet by volume, however by calories my diet would mostly be animal foods. I also think the only plant foods worth eating are fruits, some specific vegetables, some specific nuts and tubers. I dont really think much of the other plants, such as grains, legumes, most nuts and seeds and many vegetables are worth eating.

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I agree with a lot of what you posted. I'm short on time right now, but later Ill find the study and reply properly.

 

[Goobz]

Please post the study you mention.

From what I understand the Okinawans adopted a more "plant based diet" after the US military shelled their island during WWII and wiped out the large animal populations leaving mainly purple sweet potatoes and plants as the major food options. With this in mind its hard to make any claims as to centenarian status of the population, especially considering that prior to WWII the okinawan population was supposedly fond of fat pork. The extension of this fondness of pork is seen in the current culture with the elevation of spam to a delicacy status on the island.

Comparing people who dont drink, dont smoke, and have a community structure to the general american population and then implying their plant based diet is the cause of their on average 10 year increase in lifespan is about as correlational as @Tristan Loscha 's statement that you just refuted. The mainstream american diet has decreased in red meat consumption overall, as well as ruminant fats and dairy/ dairy fats, replacing these with vegetable oils, chicken products, agribusiness grains, refined sugars and industrial food additives. I find it hard to believe that researchers are able to tease out the components of the diet when comparing meat eaters, to non-meat eaters; both broad categories in and of themselves. Considering the massive campaign for veganism and plant based diets, I also find much of the research about plant based diets, particularly vegetarian and vegan diets questionable. Especially considering that many studies that discuss plant base tout the benefits of polyunsaturated fats, whole grains, and raw vegetables.

Furthermore beyond the associative population studies, when looking at human anatomy and physiology I find it hard believe any arguments for a vegan or vegetarian diet.

So we have one theoretical pathway for mTor/ IGF-1, which extends lifespan in what yeasts, c. elegans, and rats? I'd like to see how the studies pan out in animals that are specifically adapted to consuming meat such as humans. Much of the life extensions ideas I've seen in c.elegans and worms induce a hibernation state to extend lifespan which isn't ideal at all if extended out to humans.

With this said, I'm not against a plant based diet, but this depends on the definetion of said diet. I personally eat a plant based diet by volume, however by calories my diet would mostly be animal foods. I also think the only plant foods worth eating are fruits, some specific vegetables, some specific nuts and tubers. I dont really think much of the other plants, such as grains, legumes, most nuts and seeds and many vegetables are worth eating.

Here is the study I mentioned:
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolis...m/retrieve/pii/S155041311400062X?showall=true

...and here is a short article talking about it:
Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking

"A high-protein diet during middle age makes you nearly twice as likely to die and four times more likely to die of cancer, but moderate protein intake is good for you after 65. But how much protein we should eat has long been a controversial topic -- muddled by the popularity of protein-heavy diets such as Paleo and Atkins. Before this study, researchers had never shown a definitive correlation between high protein consumption and mortality risk."

 

[Jennifer]

For those that have been eating a vegan diet successfully it would be great to see via Cronometer or something on what a typical eating day looks like to you. I tend to agree that consuming meat can be inflammatory and not necessarily needed. However the nutrient density of organ meats and fat soluble vitamins that come along with it seem to be very important to keep in the diet.
missies I struggled with on vegan diet:

No fat soluble vitamins
Hard to get enough calories
SIBO every time I tried to go back to a vegan diet

also wondering your thoughts on the high PUFA content found in most vegan protein sources - is this something you avoid or not concerned about?

For me to eat 100% plant-based successfully, I just replaced my staple animal proteins (shellfish, marine collagen and pastured eggs) with a locally and traditionally made tofu (also supplemented with natto) and the rest of my diet stayed the same -- fruit and to a lesser extent, different coconut sources and veggie/mushroom broth. A typical meal was some whole fruit, fruit juice or veggie broth and scrambled or baked tofu -- I added different seasonings and sauces. For snacks I had different varieties of dates, salted young coconut meat or freeze-dried fruit (love the crunch) and for fat soluble vitamins:

Vitamin A -- beta carotene rich fruits (though, good conversion depends on good b12 and thyroid status?)
Vitamin D -- sun and lichen-based D3 supplement
Vitamin E -- fruits, veggies, tofu, nuts etc.
Vitamin K2 -- natto (MK-7 supplement is another option)

I tried many variations of plant-based and felt my best on a fruitarian diet but needed more protein to feel grounded. Given my poor thyroid and adrenal function, I end up with SIBO if I consume too much complex sugar and fiber so that left me with bean curd, pea protein or mock meats for protein sources and I felt bean curd was the best option for a variety of reasons. Thankfully, I'm tolerating seafood again because I live near the coast and from all the info on the subject that I've come across, sustainably managed and harvested seafood is the most "ethical" and environmentally friendly protein I can consume, which for me was the reason why I went vegan in the first place. I also feel having a variety of seafood is healthier than relying on just one protein source.

 

[scoobydoo]

For me to eat 100% plant-based successfully, I just replaced my staple animal proteins (shellfish, marine collagen and pastured eggs) with a locally and traditionally made tofu (also supplemented with natto) and the rest of my diet stayed the same -- fruit and to a lesser extent, different coconut sources and veggie/mushroom broth. A typical meal was some whole fruit, fruit juice or veggie broth and scrambled or baked tofu -- I added different seasonings and sauces. For snacks I had different varieties of dates, salted young coconut meat or freeze-dried fruit (love the crunch) and for fat soluble vitamins:

Vitamin A -- beta carotene rich fruits (though, good conversion depends on good b12 and thyroid status?)
Vitamin D -- sun and lichen-based D3 supplement
Vitamin E -- fruits, veggies, tofu, nuts etc.
Vitamin K2 -- natto (MK-7 supplement is another option)

I tried many variations of plant-based and felt my best on a fruitarian diet but needed more protein to feel grounded. Given my poor thyroid and adrenal function, I end up with SIBO if I consume too much complex sugar and fiber so that left me with bean curd, pea protein or mock meats for protein sources and I felt bean curd was the best option for a variety of reasons. Thankfully, I'm tolerating seafood again because I live near the coast and from all the info on the subject that I've come across, sustainably managed and harvested seafood is the most "ethical" and environmentally friendly protein I can consume, which for me was the reason why I went vegan in the first place. I also feel having a variety of seafood is healthier than relying on just one protein source.

Cool stuff! It it’s working for you that’s great!

 

[Tristan Loscha]

For me to eat 100% plant-based successfully, I just replaced my staple animal proteins (shellfish, marine collagen and pastured eggs) with a locally and traditionally made tofu (also supplemented with natto) and the rest of my diet stayed the same -- fruit and to a lesser extent, different coconut sources and veggie/mushroom broth. A typical meal was some whole fruit, fruit juice or veggie broth and scrambled or baked tofu -- I added different seasonings and sauces. For snacks I had different varieties of dates, salted young coconut meat or freeze-dried fruit (love the crunch) and for fat soluble vitamins:

Vitamin A -- beta carotene rich fruits (though, good conversion depends on good b12 and thyroid status?)
Vitamin D -- sun and lichen-based D3 supplement
Vitamin E -- fruits, veggies, tofu, nuts etc.
Vitamin K2 -- natto (MK-7 supplement is another option)

I tried many variations of plant-based and felt my best on a fruitarian diet but needed more protein to feel grounded. Given my poor thyroid and adrenal function, I end up with SIBO if I consume too much complex sugar and fiber so that left me with bean curd, pea protein or mock meats for protein sources and I felt bean curd was the best option for a variety of reasons. Thankfully, I'm tolerating seafood again because I live near the coast and from all the info on the subject that I've come across, sustainably managed and harvested seafood is the most "ethical" and environmentally friendly protein I can consume, which for me was the reason why I went vegan in the first place. I also feel having a variety of seafood is healthier than relying on just one protein source.

Did it work for you?Needing more absorbable Protein to feel grounded sounds problematic tbh,lack of Protein was so high/bad that you could actually feel it?Getting SIBO essentially from Fruitarianism,and adrenal and thyroid issues?Would you still choose to Diet like so if you could?