Hacker News Reader

Comment by tap-snap-or-nap | Hacker News Reader

> There is evidence that vegan diets are dangerous for children

That is not "evidence that vegan diets are dangerous for children".

Lower stature and bone density is evidence of dangerous malnutrition. Those with lower bone density in particular are at far higher risk of osteoporosis. I'm not sure how you could claim that isn't evidence of potential danger.

Not sure what your evidence is. Here's my list of studies of vegetarian and vegan children that disprove your claims:

* https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/4/832/htm

* https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-021-02753-3

* https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/5/1707/htm

* https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/6/1565/6178918

* https://anthropogoniquescom.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/grow...

* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-277X....

* https://www.minervamedica.it/en/journals/minerva-pediatrics/...

* https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.202013492

All concluded that vegan diets were healthy for children as long as the parents knew the common deficiencies (B12) and fed their children enough calories. The study you cited is on my list because it seems you didn't read the results where it stated that most children were not eating fortified or supplemented food like Vitamin D, which could easily explain why they have a lower bone density.

> Not sure what your evidence is.

I provided a study in my very first comment. Did you read it? I'll provide it again for you here: (https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/6/1565/6178918?log...) The study found vegan children to be at risk of lower stature and bone density.

Thank you for the studies, I have reviewed them. In turn:

1. Please review Figure 2. Children on vegan and vegetarian diets presented with higher rates of "stunted or severely stunted," as per the WHO criteria used. This is discussed and confirmed later in the study. The study did not measure bone density at all.

2. This is the same study cited as above.

3. This study explored neither height nor bone density. The blood levels of studied macro-nutrients were in the healthy range, and that's good.

4. In a fascinating twist of fate, you cited the study I cited above, which finds that vegan children are at risk of lower stature and bone density. I'm not sure you read these studies if you think this study confirms your beliefs.

5. This study found that vegetarian children were both shorter, and weighed less. They did not measure bone density.

6. This study found, like the rest, that vegan children were shorter and weighed less. They did not measure bone density.

7. This study, once again, found children to be lighter and shorter. They did not measure bone density.

8. This study, once again, found children to be lighter and lower in "growth percentile." The study did not measure bone density.

9. It's hard to parse this study. The omnivorous children were taller than the vegetarians, but shorter than the vegans. However the vegan cohort was only six in total. Further, the vegetarian children were heavier than the omnivores. These results are the opposite of all of the studies you cited. It is an interesting data point, but it doesn't appear to lend credence to either of our arguments. It's clear that some delta occurs as a result of vegan, vegetarian, and omnivorous diets, and given the wealth of evidence you've submitted, it's clear that vegetarian and especially vegan diets usually result in poorer growth. The study did not measure bone density.

I'm not sure you read these studies very thoroughly. I suppose I should thank you for providing so much corroborative evidence that vegan diets are dangerous for children.

Very interesting reply.

The summaries of all these studies can effectively be summarised as: if you are raising children on a vegan diet, ensure you supplement and have adequate calory intake. Taking datapoints from figures and graphs without understanding the underlying causes and effects is how we spread misinformation. It's great that studies are measuring this so that we understand better how humans can develop successfully.

An example of this is in study 6 where you stated that vegan children were shorter and weighed less. Whilst true the study also stated "The energy intake of the vegan children was consistently lower than the recommended daily amounts". It then concluded that with a sensibly planned diet vegan children should have no intellectual or physical problems in their development.

So whilst I agree that all the studies did find differences, I disagree that they are somehow proving against my points that a vegan diet in children can be healthy if correctly planned. Due to how the animal agriculture industry creates meat (such as supplementing and fortifying the meat) it is extremely easy to get away with not planning meals with an omnivorous diet.

I agree with your summary. Vegan diets don't have to result in poorer nutrition. They're just much harder to configure and administer, and most people don't optimise them well, especially for children. This is the difference between what ought to be, and what is. The human or compliance factor in diets is often much more important than the diet itself. If compliance is low, it doesn't matter how healthy the diet is.

You have it backwards. Malnutrition can lead to impaired growth and lower bone density. But that doesn't automatically mean that lower bone density and lower stature is evidence of malnutrition. For all we know the measured difference between test and control was much smaller than the standard deviation.

Also the list you posted contains substances that our body produces ourselves so we don't need to get these from food (e.g. Creatine)

You are conflating study confounds with malnutrition. Lower stature and bone density is in fact clinical evidence of malnutrition. It is possible that the study cohort simultaneously suffered some other malady like radiation poisoning, but it is unlikely they all suffered maladies resulting in the same symptoms. I think the study design is sufficient to rule that out. It is certainly as rigorous as any other peer-reviewed nutritional study.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com