Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomohawk | Hacker News Reader

I get that alot. If you only eat plants, people think its a bit quirky maybe, but fully accepted. But stop eating them and get great results, people can't handle it.

View on HN

The reasons one diet is typically accepted and the other isn't is because the two diets are materially different. It's possible to have a nutritionally complete diet of only plants where the vast majority of the nutrients are naturally occurring in the food. The same is not true of a diet without plants; it's not possible to have a nutritionally complete diet without plants without a significant portion of nutrients coming only from supplementation.

> It's possible to have a nutritionally complete diet of only plants

Vegans need B12 supplementation.

They do, as well as (somehow) omnivores that do not eat game animals regularly. All livestock are supplemented so they stay somewhat healthy AND share a fraction of that b12 with you through that steak. Not very far from a supplemented tofu steak IMHO.

Is that also the case for grass fed beef?

Perhaps you're not aware that Inuit lived without plants for most of the year and did well?

Maybe take a look at this documentary, which touches on the story of a vegetarian who ended up living with the Inuit and his experiences. It's a good place to start to expand your knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVJM_0XEiBI&pp=ygUPZmF0IGRvY...

The Inuit. The Kazakh people. The Sami. (In fact most Northern Europeans had nothing to eat but meat and maybe fermented vegetables for two thirds of the year.) The Masai. The Metis.

Conversely, there has never been a vegan society. Even the handful of vegetarian cultures that have evolved such as those found in India rely heavily on dairy. Humans simply aren't adapted to be vegetarian.

This is just wrong as far as I know. How are you defining complete nutrition and where did you get the idea that you can get it from an all-plant diet but not an all-meat one?

While I am extremely skeptical of the healthy-ness of a diet entirely made of meat and other animal products, I'm not sure what particular nutrients you are thinking of. The only thing that animal products don't contain that can be found in plants is dietary fiber, and it's somewhat debatable whether to call that a nutrient. But otherwise, meat and other animal products contain all of the necessary proteins, fats, and vitamins. After all, we all live entirely on animal products for ~1 year of our lives, when we exclusively drink milk.

The problem with meat is that it doesn't contain carbohydrates, which are a cheap source of energy, so the body has to work a lot more to get its energy, and with a lot more by-products. Also, the lack of fiber will significantly alter the gut microbiome, and almost always leads to stool issues.

It's true. I ran into a friend of my wife's yesterday who is a nurse. The topic of food came up and I mentioned I haven't eaten any plants in over two years. She snidely remarked "How's that constipation going for you?" She's 150 lbs overweight and looks 15 years older than her age. Meanwhile, I lost 20 lbs and cleared up a bunch of medical problems. (Including constipation.) People love to sit on their high horses and make snide remarks while evidence is staring them right in the face. It's wild.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com