Why vegan junk food may be even worse for your health | Hacker News Reader

Why vegan junk food may be even worse for your health

bbc.com

73 pointsgyre00752 comments

There seemed something fishy about this article. I looked up the first stat that caught my eye,

> One study found that 25% of vegans had very low blood iron levels, compared to 3% of vegetarians and 0% of omnivores.

That just sounded like rubbish – although "one study" has found almost everything – so I clicked the link to the paper, Nutrient Intake and Iron Status of Australian Male Vegetarians which turns out to have involved 39 ovolactovegetarians, 25 omnivores, and 10 vegans. 10 - so already the "25% of vegans" must be nonsense. I couldn't find the 25% figure in the paper, but I think it comes from this:

> One ovolacto-vegetarian aged 23 years and two vegans aged 41 and 36 years had serum ferritin concentrations below 12ng/ml (11, 8 and 10 ng/ml, respectively).

At that point I lost interest.

Its almost 100% certain - if your vegan diet looks exactly like a standard American diet (using substitutes) - you will gain weight unless you're meticulous about counting calories.

If you want to be healthy on a vegan - do not eat vegan junk food. Being healthy on a vegan diet means eating whole foods - minimally processed. The food you eat should be high in fiber, low in fat, and high in water content. Most of your calories should come from minimally processed starches.

The incomplete protein thing is a myth.

https://www.forksoverknives.com/the-latest/the-myth-of-compl... Frances Moore Lappé retracted her statement about incomplete protein.

These articles are essentially Vegan FUD - hoping to get you to worry about health minutia. It tries to poison the well essentially. A whole food plant based diet is a great way to maintain your health.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-cause...

The incomplete protein comes from one thing: grains are generally.low in lysine and legumes are generally low in metsomethingine (metionine?). Both are essential. Eating enough for both during a day will even out (the liver stores them) unless you are doing a shitload of exercise.

Anyway, you will have to eat really shit food to not get enough protein. I live in a country with among the world's highest recommended protein intake (Sweden, 15%E - but anything between 10 and 20 is within recommendations) which I reach without even trying.

The WHO and American lower limits are impossible to come down to unless you live on oil and rice or eat ultrashit food.

Ageed. When the quoted dietician is repeating the old canard regarding protein and amino acids, it calls into question the rest of her statements.

I’m willing to sacrifice some karma on this. What a trash article that selectively picks information (some of it not really true and some of it easily overcome in today’s world).

Whatever diet you follow, if you don’t care about what you eat or don’t eat and in which combinations, your health will not be what could be expected for a person of the same profile who cares about what they eat.

Processed (also called “junk”) foods aren’t going away, whichever diet you look at. People want convenience. Try telling someone to change their diet to be different from what they’re used to eating and you’ll find out how difficult it is (without other motivations, external support, convenience of picking stuff off the shelves or ordering something, etc.).

Considering the environmental impact of meat (and the current agricultural systems), and considering that it’s absolutely impossible for everyone to avoid their supermarkets and convenience foods, these alternatives provide some kind of stop gap even if they may be unhealthy. Point the drawbacks. Give feedback to the makers to improve the products. But don’t pretend that the currently available junk foods (that aren’t vegan) are better overall, all things considered.

Personally, I avoid processed and junk foods most of the time. I also cook food by myself almost all the time. But I do indulge once in a while on some junk food. And I can feel its adverse effects. I’m under no illusion that this would be the same for others or even possible for others just because I’m able to do it.

By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. I find this to be irrational. I am all for finding the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way of feeding humans. But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.

> By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own.

It's entirely possible that these products, in conjunction with a vegan diet, are better overall than a meat-eating diet with similar junk foods. The starting point is this: a generally healthier vegan diet vs. a generally less-healthy omnivorous diet.

> But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.

If the conversation of veganism vs. eating meat is centered around the cost/benefit analysis of junk-foods available to both diets, then the moral distinction between the two has already been overlooked. I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism.

> I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism.

You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously. But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner, that says a lot more about your thought patterns than it does about the intrinsic validity of a cause.

He isn't saying he can't imagine it, I believe he's saying there is no way that one can say they are living a moral lifestyle while still consciously contributing to the destruction of the planet and abuse of animals when it can so easily be avoided by eating different foods.

I understand some people can be naive of the issues or not be in a position to choose their diet.

It's perfectly reasonable to me that some people consider the morality of veganism as settled as the morality of, say, rape. Especially in a world where the vast majority of us only eat meat because we were born into it and it pleasures us.

Frankly, I think the moral superiority of veganism is obvious to most people and very difficult to argue against. I think a lot of the drama is only the fallout of our difficulty squaring those morals with our culturally-backed, deeply-seated, identity-level behavior and our already existing struggle to control what we eat.

> You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously.

I'm not a vegan. I just think that, if you are trying to live an ethical life, it is the most ethical position.

> But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner

I don't know what you mean by "morally self-consistent manner." If you mean moral anti-realism, then, no, I agree with moral realism and choose to side with expert opinion. I don't think morals are subject-dependent.

> I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism.

While I don't agree with the parent commenter and I think you made very good points against what they were saying, I also don't think meat consumption in principle is immoral. I absolutely think that industrial farming practices are immoral, especially the horrors of animals raised their whole lives in minuscule coops or pens.

However, free-range animals which are given a decent life before being slaughtered likely lead a better life and definitely have easier deaths than virtually any animal in its natural environment - no predators, almost no disease, and a death that doesn't involve being violently killed or maimed by a predator, or slowly losing the power to find food and dieing of starvation in old age, or any of the numerous horrors that are a certainty for all animals living in nature.

You can argue that we simply can't sustain the modern meat-eating diet for 7B people with traditional farming practices, and this may be true. But the solution is not to stop consumption entirely, but to force ethical production of meat while consumers adapt to a diet with less, but still some, meat (and eggs, milk, cheese, etc.).

> By eating food that is more unhealthy for you in order to save the planet, it means that you have valued the planet's health above your own. I find this to be irrational.

I find it more irrational to believe that one can be healthy in an unhealthy environment.

> I am all for finding the cleanest, most environmentally friendly way of feeding humans. But if the result is less good for human consumption, then I am simply substituting one evil for another, and nobody can take any moral high ground over it.

The article is about flimsy speculation on one extreme situation (vegan junk food vs. regular junk food). Nutrition science offers us precious little certainties, one of the few being that processed food is less healthy than food cooked by humans with a few simple ingredients. An healthy and balanced vegan diet would be fantastically more healthy than the choices of at least 90% of americans.

Can you create some optimally-healthy diet for a small group of priviliged people at the expense of fucking the environment and resources for everyone else? Probably. Should you? I guess it depends on how you see your relation with the rest of humanity.

In any case, this is all theoretical. I bet most people gasping about this are going to down some pizza & beer within the next 24 hours.

Junk food is junk food. It's called "junk" for a reason.

If you're a vegan for health reasons and eating a lot of junk food, you are missing the point of being vegan for health reasons.

Junk vegan food is seen by most as a transition food to allow those that eat crap food to keep eating crap food, but without the animal abuse and environmental impact that meat/dairy cause.

Many people have struggled to jump from a traditional western diet straight into a whole grain plant based diet.

This article misses two huge reasons for veganism: global warming and animal welfare. It doesn't even seem to try represent vegans fairly, which pisses me off (even though I'm not one).

IMHO the biggest argument is that vegan diet is much less resource-intensive. Much more people could be fed globally, because per gram of omni food a multiple of resources (water, soy, space) are used compared to a vegan diet.

I know we interpret very broadly what topics are considered “hacker” news here. But I, for one, think the topic of nutrition and particularly vegan nutrition seems to generate a lot more heat than light on HN.

There are plenty of other places online people can go to discuss this. I wouldn’t mind seeing this site stick a little closer to its hacker roots.

But Soylent!!!

I disagree. This is a huge area which is ripe for innovation. Eating crap food is a huge problem for society and many don't even realise what they are doing to their bodies or the planet.

I’m pretty much vegan myself and have been an advocate for plant based diets here on HN many times. But the discussions on this topic don’t ever seem to go anywhere productive here with people mostly talking past each other.

There are plenty of other places people that want to debate this stuff can go.

I'm not vegan but this article is junk.

Junk food is well known to be unhealthy.

A lot of animal fats cooked at high temperature are known to be carcinogenic.

There is widespread agreement in nutritional medicine that most people eat too much meat and not enough fruit and vegetables.

IMO the phrasing "vegan junk food may be even worse" and the whole article sounds like cherry picking and clickbait.

>Olive oil, on the other hand, is high in high-density lipoproteins (HDL).

Lipoproteins are the fat transport mechanism found in animals. Oil olive, like all vegan products, does not contain lipoproteins.

>Lipoproteins

Is that a bad thing? Quick google suggests it's associated with inflammation

AFAIK dietary lipoproteins have no nutritional relevance. Lipoproteins in your body are made by your liver to package fats into tiny droplets that can be transported by your blood. The balance of different types of lipoprotein in your blood is associated with different health outcomes, and diet influences the types of lipoproteins produced. Exactly how important any of this is a contentious subject.

The article probably meant to say that olive oil consumption is associated with higher HDL production, which is associated with better health outcomes.

I recently read that saturated fat in coconut oil is actually much better for you than unsaturated fats in regular vegetable oils due to the effect on sugar metabolism[0]. This seems like a total reversal of what is presented in the article.

[0]http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsuitablefats.shtml

More on coconut oil specifically: http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/coconut-oil.shtml

Any manufactured food will be less healthy than natural foods.

I'm rather suspicious of this article. It smells a bit like a meat industry funded piece.

Vegans I know are not trying to replace meat with manufactured substitutes. They eat while foods instead, including spinach and kale, which has a lot of iron.

Did you miss the part where they pointed out vegetable sources are often less bio available and less well absorbed?

The article is not funded by the meat industry the BBC is not PBS. The article is talking about a culture where junk food is ubiquitous (the UK) and where vegan junk food is being touted as a healthy alternative.

If you think that the BBC is not affected by the beef/lamb industry in the UK - I have a bridge to sell you.

The British media pushes gastric bypass surgery before pushing plants.

You should probably not rely on foods that contains a lot of iron-absorbtion-ingmhibiting things (spinach, parsley) to get enough iron. Beans are better in just about every way.

Parsley would have been a wonder food if not for all the oxalic acid (is that the correct english name?) and other anti-nutrients. Spinach is better, but not by that much. Beans and whole-grain grains are where it's at!

Beans are amazing, especially if you invest in a pressure cooker. You can keep a cheap, healthy protein supply in you cupboard for months. We order black, red kidney and pinto beans and rice in bulk. You can then just buy fresh produce as you need.

> I'm rather suspicious of this article. It smells a bit like a meat industry funded piece.

The authors of these BBC articles (Worklife/Future) are quite independent. They are typically asked to research and write about a specific topic. Some times they can't help but bring their own bias to the discussion.

Using the word "food" even in "junk food" for ultra-processed stuff like these products seems confusing. I felt a new term would clarify and propose doof, "food" backward, which I explain in this podcast episode https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the-environment/episo....

Use of the term has spread, used by Dr. Joel Fuhrman, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and more.

I think the problem with most vegan dishes in the west is the lack of a cultural context. Unlike food conglomerates, cultures give an unbiased generational assessment of what it means to have flavor and health benefits e.g - vegan burger in america (processed as hell) < vegan dumplings (fresh leeks, vegetables, garlic). Also as a woman you do face low iron levels naturally and vegan diets affect how we menstruate.

I'm sticking to a "most meals vegan" approach for now. Not confident I have the skills to cover all the nutritional bases with pure vegan

I personally know several vegans that have had minor health problems because of their diet. You can eat a very healthy diet as a vegan, the problem is most people are not educated or motivated enough to get proper variation in their diet.

Its much easier for the general public to eat a varied diet by not restricting themselves to veganism.

"Its much easier for the general public to eat a varied diet by not restricting themselves to veganism."

Which nutrients (micro or macro) would you say most people would be missing if switching from a omnivore diet to veganism?

From memory, protein, B12 vitamin and iron. Again all these can be avoided with a good understanding of what you are eating while on a vegan diet (buying fortified foods to get B12 for example, or mixing protein sources).

The other thing which I believe (but no idea if scientifically true) is that different people (due to genetics or whatnot) respond to diets a bit differently. A high carb diet for me is a no-no. I get joint pains, tired all the time, break up in acne all over my scalp (and no, I don't eat grains. I eat rice or pasta maybe once a month, most/all is from veggies and fruit). If I go over 100-150g of carbs I have these effects.

My ex-wife had issues with a high protein diet that exarcebated her anxiety and panic attacks.

Anecdotally I'm the opposite. I personally know dozens of meat eaters who have had major health problems because of their diet.

A varied diet is often promoted because it gives you the most chance of getting the nutrients your body needs, but it fails abysmally when it comes to excluding things your body doesn't need.

If you also start to consider the environmental impact and animal abuse that comes from 'just eat everything', then it becomes very compelling to put a small amount of effort into reducing meat/dairy consumption and aiming towards a whole food plant based lifestyle. Small steps aren't difficult for most people.

Actually, not having all aminoacids can lead to better aging. Vegan and vegetarian diet lack of methionine, and in animal models the carence in methionine boosted their lifespan.

One of the worst articles I've ever read.

1. Blood levels of DHA vary by a 30 micromole difference between fish eaters and other diet groups suggesting ALA conversion is higher when DHA and EPA intake is lower.(if you are that concerned you can also take a supplement)

2. Jack fruit is low in protein. Ok eat something else than if you are looking for protein lmao. Every food contains every essential amino acid just in varying levels. They are completely wrong on that pointNo evidence you can't get enough of each on a vegan diet just eat a varied diet and you will be fine. No one gets there protein from a 1 or 2 sources anyways.

3. They are spreading dangerous misinformation in their third point. Heme iron is absorbed "better" than non heme iron because it bypasses the body's regulatory pathways. The body cannot regulate heme iron when consumed which can lead to elevated iron levels above what the body needs. This is a problem because iron is a pro-oxident and these supraphsiolgical levels of iron cause oxidative stress leading to DNA damage. This is the main reason red meat is classified as carcinogenic. It is also linked to all sorts of health problems like arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease. Heme iron is not good for you and to reccomend meat because of the heme iron content is ill advised at best. As for deficiency on a vegan diet just make sure you are eating your dark leafy greens foods like tofu, beans, and lentils also have sizeable iron contents. No evidence that plant sources are inadequate.

4. Don't eat out if you are concerned about sodium intake. Pretty much any food from a restaurant, be that fast food or upscale, contains shockingly high sodium contents. Not unique to vegan food in the slightest and to paint it otherwise is blatantly disingenuous.

5. Cheese is good. No it contains saturated fat and cholesterol even that spooky sodium depending on the type. But it contains healthy bacteria because it is fermented. First, that doesn't nullify the other issues concerning cheese. Second, you can get fermented vegan cheese. Thirdly, the bacteria in cheese has an extremely high die of rate so the amount is actually quit low in cheese to begin with and then if you cook it or prepare it in anyway you will pretty much get no living bacteria into your gut.

6. Coconut oil is bad. Yes it is and it is worse than other plant based oils but all oils wheather it be cold pressed olive oil or lard are terrible for you. Some are worse than others but they all contain saturated fat, which is proven to raise serum cholesterol levels.

7. Vegan diets don't contain b12. While lots of processed vegan foods and nut milks have b12 added it still is not that reliable a source. So yes you should supplement with b12 if you are a vegan. 1 pill a day is not difficult.

Processed vegan food is not very good for you yes. But neither is the animal foods it is imitating. No one is eating a beyond burger because it is healthy. They are eating it because it tastes good. Same as the cow burger. If you are trying g to be as healthy as possible a whole food vegan diet which excludes vegan junkfood seems to be the way to go. All if this also ignores the ethical and environmental reasons for going vegan. Dogshit pseudo science article with blatant misinformation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com