QuantumAphid

Vitamin A... is available in plant foods in the form of precursors, e.g., beta carotine and similar carotenoids. These must be converted by your body into retinol, the animal and bioavailable form of Vitamin A. It is not uncommon for some individuals to be poor converters.

B6... (pyridoxal, pyridoxamine) is found in plants, but many of these sources require conversion, particularly beans and seeds contain antinutrients which reduce or block its bioavailability. Bioavailable B6 is far more abundant in animal foods.

"B12: Should be supplemented, most people get this from fortified foods... deficiency is common across both vegans and those who eat animals."

Stating that B12 deficiency is common provides a weak justification of the diet, which at its core exhibits a more pronounced deficiency of B12 than the broad population. Supplementation has its own problems with absorption and is not part of a natural whole food diet. If your answer is to supplement the many gaps of a vegan diet with supplements, isn't that a strong indication you're on shaky nutritional ground?

"D3... deficiency is common across both vegans and those who eat animals."

D3 deficiency is especially pronounced in certain kinds of diets, including vegan and vegetarian diets. D3 plays an important role in bone/calcium formation. Studies of vegetarians have linked low bone mineral density to their diets. Have you met adult vegans with osteoperosis or broken bones? To combat this during low-light seasons or geographies, a very good vegan source of D3 is lichens, the moldy looking stuff which grows on boulders. Have you ever tasted lichens?

"F: This is common outside of the animal kingdom"

Outside the animal kingdom vitamin F (linoleic acid) is found primarily in seed and nut oils. Seed/nut oils are not naturally stable and are manufactured through industrial chemical processes. They are high in polyunsaturated fats which also degrade in an oxidative way at high heat. Enjoy these man-made oils at your own risk and avoid using them for frying, searing or sauteeing.

"K2: Found in soy"

No. Or maybe you're thinking of K1. In the plant world, K2 is found only in _fermented_ soy, which in Japan is a slimy delicacy called natto which smells like sweaty gym socks. When is the last time you ate natto?

"Amino acids... Creatine... Carnitine... Taurine..."

Vegans have to be particularly careful about methionine and lysine. Creatine, carnatine and taurine are found in animal foods and although your liver can produce them, the muscle fibers of vegetarians and vegans have been found to have much lower levels compared to those on diets including animal foods. Similar for heme-iron-- vegetarians and vegans have higher rates of anemia.

"CoQ10: commonly found in vegan diets"

CoQ10 is available at low levels in plant foods, but along with antinutrients such as oxalates, lectins and goitrogens, or in the form of seed/nut oils which I have already commented on.

"CLA: True, not found outside animals. CLA is controversial as there isn’t clear evidence on wether it is good or bad..."

When following an exclusionary diet, you're agreeing to forgo any potential benefits of some food groups. I guess one can hope that the case is closed on CLA, a nutrient in animal foods which the human species has been consuming as part of a natural diet for many millenia.

"Cholesterol: Your body makes it."

Yes, although body does make cholesterol, approx 1%-3% of the population is not good at making cholesterol. For this segment, their cholesterol can get very low unless they obtain it from the diet-- if they don't it can lead to severe neurological problems. The human brain is 2% of bodyweight, yet it contains 25% of the body's cholesterol. Are you aware that studies show that vegetarian and vegans have much higher rates of mental health problems? Perhaps it's just a coincidence.

"There are millions of people thriving on a vegan diet."

Veganism is a belief system (one which is noble, I should add). The diet part is full of nutritional gaps which need man-made supplements and powders, so clearly there are more optimal diets from a nutritional standpoint.

Nearly everyone can handle an exclusionary diet for some period of time before deficiencies catch up, gut issues develop, or mental health starts to suffer. Note that there are far more ex-vegans in the world than vegans. Odds are also good that you will become an ex-vegan in the future. I think that any diet in which you must study and plan your meals to obtain sufficient nutrients raises a big warning flag.

"Yes we evolved to be able to eat many things and thrive. That doesn’t mean we need to."

You may disagree, but my experience is that humans should eat a species-appropriate diet with a braod range of nutrients and minerals. Our bodies evolved on a physiological level to obtain nutrients from nature in a form which includes animal sources. Everyone gets to decide what they want to put in their bodies, so I salut your noble cause, but while I believe you are better than a standard american diet of highly processed carbs, seed oils and sugars, I do not believe your nutrition is superior to a natural whole-foods diet which includes both plant and animal foods.

Because human physiology evolved in an environment in which critical nutrients were sourced predominantly (^exclusively animal in list below) in the flesh of animals.

Examples of key animal-based nutrients: Vitamins: A, B6, B12^, D3^, F, K2^; Amino Acids: Creatine, Carnitine, Carnosine, Taurine; Heme Iron; CoQ10; CLA; Cholesterol

This list does not include nutrients/vitamins which often lead to deficiencies when sourced in plants, due to very low bioavailability or antinutrients which block the absorption of the nutrients.

So, why do we kill and eat other living beings? Because we evolved this way and it is part of our natural diet.

"I think a lot of people who "do vegan right" end up just eat less processed crap in general and end up being healthy, not necessarily because of eating less/no meat."

I agree 100%. Some of the biggest benefits of any diet are obtained by getting back to simple foods and away from highly processed foods/carbs mixed with seed oils and sugars. Ditch that stuff and you'll likely do well on just about any diet.

Isn't consuming human breastmilk and being vegan/animal-free a contradiction?

Thanks for sharing & best wishes for your family's health. I hope you have allowed for proper vaccinations.

Most store-bought or restaurant kimchi has fish-sauce and/or bits of shrimp.

I can't find much support for B12 in these foods in online databases.

If these must be home-made or of similar quality, supplementation of B12 is still going to be important.

Including animal-free "milk" as an infant?

I'm guessing you mean "minimal amounts" because B12 doses/levels are measured in micrograms. In fact a vegan diet provides no natural B12 (see note below). This is a serious gap that must be addressed by supplementation/fortification.

Supplements have challenges too (and in fact many studies show supplements to be of little value). In order to attain sufficient B12 via supplements, a person needs to consume many times the RDA value. For example, only 10 mcg of a 500 mcg oral supplement is absorbed by healthy people.

So while technically you may need minimal amounts of B12, it remains an essential vitamin. Getting it in a format which is both absorbable and bioavailable is not trivial and serves as a clue that human physiology evolved in an ecosystem which, to varying degrees, involved eating animals.

Note: For now I'll set aside probable/common deficiencies among vegans/vegetarians in B6, heme iron, the vitamins A, D3, K2, micronutrients and fatty acids DHA, CLA, Carnatine, Carnosine, Taurine, Creatine and others. In fairness, a western/standard american diet can also score poorly in many nutrients.

Supposedly for ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats, etc.) 85% of their feed is not suitable for human consumption. Quite a lot of agricultural waste (e.g., corn stalks, spent mash/grain left from beer production) is upcycled through livestock. For this reason it's common to integrate cultivation of crops along with livestock.

It's important here to realize that irrespective of your diet-- vegetarian, vegan, omnivore, carnivore and everything in between-- these are just labels and any of these can be bad for your health.

For example, the following highly processed and sugary foods are considered vegan/vegetarian-friendly: French fries from most fast-food chains, Oreo cookies, Fritos corn chips, Lays potato chips, unfrosted Pop-Tarts, Nature Valley Granola Bars, Graham Crackers.

I would not trust an endorsement of a diet from a health organization. Over the past 30-40 years most modern countries have been experiencing a surge in chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and strokes. If you look at the places around the globe where Western diets have been introduced (e.g., Hawaii and Polynesia, Aboriginal tribes of Australia, Inuit in polar regions etc.), you see wrecked health markers for those populations after abandoning their local indiginous diets. Health organizations have done a disservice in the realm of nutrition and health.

Also bear in mind that insulin has a finite shelf life. An unopened bottle of insulin lasts for 3 months when refrigerated. An opened bottle stays fresh for 4 weeks.

Plan on your Canada shipments/visits multiple times per year...

The Medicare/Medicaid system is specifically prohibited by law from negotiating drug prices.*

https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/jan/17/...

Also, it's illegal for US citizens to order or receive prescription drugs from Canada. So, your advice can be made to work, but not as public policy -- something like 9% of the US population has diabetes -- 30+ million people.

*Trump has vowed to “bring down drug prices” and has criticized the current policy prohibiting negotiating prices with pharma companies. Republican Congressional leaders have not specified any proposals to reduce drug costs.

There are 328 official legal points of entry into the United States where documentation is required. 9-11 changed a lot of things in the US, and this is one of them. Border patrol agents (of any nationality) are not fun to spend time with. Also immigration attorneys are expensive.

Huh? Americans needing healthcare are walking into Mexico? And outside the standard ports of exit/entry?

Bravo on taking some action. Hopefully your electrical grid is powered by natural gas (or cleaner, sustainable sources) rather than coal-fired power plants. I also much prefer my EV to a combustion engine vehicle too and hope to stay electric.

I agree that this sounds like a pleasant and sustainable diet. However, like many diets, it all depends on your starting point. I'm skeptical that this is an effective weight-loss diet in the sense that an obese person or someone with a chronic metabolic illness (CVD, T2D, high blood pressure) will lose weight on. Anecdotally 5 years ago I followed this diet about and I put on weight.

Hmm. Why is it that humans spread across the planet to geographically diverse places and climates, many of which are sorely lacking (if not completely devoid) with regard to availability of fruit?

Is there an official specific Mediterranean diet? Is it the Mediterranean of Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, or Egypt, etc.? And from what era/period, because my understanding is that those places are seeing significant increases in chronic metabolic disease as well.

From what I've read, Mediterranean means something sorta along the lines of "natural whole foods, not much meat, lots of olive oil nuts and salads" -- and this is vague nutrition advice which can apply to almost any non-exclusionary diet.

I concede that, although I didn't think that was necessary. I'm not arguing for meat here-- everyone should decide what's best for their health. I'm addressing the article, not your desire for me to be comprehensive.

The title says that this is the best thing we can do. It's not unreasonable to challenge this conclusion.

I didn't throw out eating less meat. I don't disagree with that as being one of the ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But the fact remains that there are many ways of reducing emissions and author/publication makes this one specific recommendation the title of the article. It's a lot more complex than that, but this author has a preferred conclusion.

One should also note that a vegetarian diet may not be optimal for your individual health profile. People with colitis, diversticulitis, chron's disease / IBS or other allergies might not do well on a high fiber diet. In other words, there's a lot of debate still about which diets are optimal for humans. Clearly there's a spectrum, but a vegetarian diet or a vegan diet may not be the most healthy diet for a given individual.

I'm not familiar with this chef, but if somone is a "carnivore" that typically means that meat/fish/eggs compose most if not all of their diet. That's an extreme diet.

At least in the US, the percentage of calories of a typical diet is 70% plant-based (including nut/vegetable oils) vs 30% animal, and I believe red meat has been on the decline for years, whereas consumption of chicken has risen.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at...

I avoided making that Swiftian satire of a conclusion, but it did occur to me.

I think it makes sense to push for changes to the production of livestock as well as agriculture, to aggressively combat deforestation, and of course reduce emissions of road transportation, which is 10% of total emissions.

Not impressed by their logic. This is a multi-factored problem with numerous areas which can be addressed to lower greenhouse gas emissions. And they proceed boil this complex problem down into an anti-meat soundbite.

I think they could just as easily have titled it "Why having no children is the best thing you can do for the planet in 2019" but I guess that didn't fit the anti-meat agenda.

Breakdown of sources of greenhouse gas emissions: How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming? https://www.skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to...

Today I learned that 4 lines of code is allowed to be billed as 2 lines of code.

I've had pretty good experience with it. I discount the touted magical benefits and just focus on the practical results, which for me has been increased hardiness/resilience with regard to energy levels.

My approach:

- Follow a cyclical pattern. Your body/metabolism evolved to endure periods of hunger as well as taking advantage of relative plenty. Try to flex your metabolism each week by eating little or no food for 24+ hours, then eating one meal per day (nutrient dense, see below), then eating two per day, increasing until you eat to satiety (just before going back into the extended fast).

- This is a bit like treating each week as an annual seasonal cycle. For my schedule, Sun night through Wed morning is Winter (mostly fasting), Wed/Thu is Spring (one meal per day), Fri/Sat is Summer (two meals), Sunday is Autumn and feasting before Winter comes.

- You'll be eating much less in total volume, so focus on maximum nutrition density when (re)feeding. This means eating things like (grass-fed) liver and heart, wild-caught fish and bivalves, vegetables and leafy greens to replenish nutrients and minerals. From a nutritional standpoint, this is not so much a keto/hflc/carnivore/paleo approach, it's really just: Eat meat and vegetables. During the Summer/Fall cycle of my week I'll deviate a little and add berries or low glycemic veggies.

- I exercise with high intensity twice per week. Once on Wed morning (ideally fasted), and once on Sunday morning. The rest of the week I just do a bit of stretching/mobility. This isn't critical to the fasting program, but I find that the metabolism flexing through fasting is a positive stress that complements the physical activity (also a positive stress).

So, that's it. The cyclical nature of it feels good to me, it feels a bit more natural, the nutritional part feels really good, and I've had really good results from an energy level and body composition standpoint.

I think it's confusing to generalize about fat/cholesterol being good or bad. In a complex system, labeling an actor as good or bad depends on multiple factors.

If you're obese, have markers of inflammation and eat a poor diet high in carbs and fats (i.e., a standard american diet), you're probably high risk for developing cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes and other chronic disorders. An alarming majority of adults in the US fall into this category (60-70%).

Under this scenario, when a patient's diet and lifestyle factors remain unaddressed, prescribing statins seems to yeild little benefit.

On the other hand, when a patient improves their diet/lifestyle and gets their weight under control, in most cases the patient can return to acceptable cholesterol levels without statins. Obviously this is the ideal outcome, but physicians have little influence over patients eating habits and lifestyles. Standard medical protocol directs primary physicians to treat these risk factors proactively with statins.

So is dietary fat good or bad? If you are at a healthy weight with no/low markers of inflammation or other metabolic disorders and follow a balanced diet (meat and veggies, avoiding processed foods), fat is fine. Yes fine. Fat intake should probably be moderated due to its high calorie density, but other than that it's fine (note: excepting deep-frying food with polyunsaturated oils). Animal fats: fine. Nut oils: fine. Vegetable oils: ok provided you don't use in a fryer (or cook at high temps).

In sum, the countering theory is that cholesterol is benign-- it's not the enemy. Cholesterol has many important functions in the body: It's a key part of the body's hormone production, cellular repair and energy regulation systems. In the overall picture it's a passenger and not the primary driver of cardivascular disease. Its presence becomes a risk when other negative health markers are present.

The "deniers" believe that the prevailing lipid hypothesis fails to adequately explain the causes of cardiovascular disease, and statins not strongly associated with positive outcomes. They assert that inflammation is a marker of arterial stress, with cholesterol being implicated in heart attacks and strokes due to its role in the formation of plaque (i.e., cholesterol repairs damaged artery walls which contributes to plaque buildup). In this hypothesis, the underlying cause of cardiovascular disease is more closely tied to inflammation rather than the sole presence of cholesterol in the bloodstream.

For weight loss the devil is in the details, so your paradigm is far too broad to be useful.

For example, eating less is important, but eating too little is counter-productive and can do long-term damage to your basal metabolic rate.

Exercise is good for overall cardio fitness, muscle tone, joint health, and some excess calorie expenditure, but your body will not allow you to exercise away too much energy too quickly. Too much of a good thing here and you can end up damaging your BMR, you will feel exhausted/injured and your body will break-down muscle as much as fat.

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/3/16845438/exercise-weight-loss-m...

Your paradigm sounds a lot like what the contestants on the TV show The Biggest Loser did, and the vast majority of those dieters damaged their metabolisms and yo-yo'd back to their former obese selves.

Are you suggesting that AI/ML makes those new requirements go away? Or that managing those requirements becomes easier because AI/ML software figures it out?

Metformin requires a prescription, by the way.