This is probably a consequence of me being terminally online, but the biggest things I’ve seen the anti-vegan and ex-vegan crowds (especially on their respective subreddits) say against veganism are that it’s less healthy. I’ve seen some attempts to argue crop deaths and monoculture as well, but really nothing on animal suffering since it’s basically impossible to win there. While we have studies citing these benefits of veganism, they push back with their own studies showing the opposite. I’m not really sure how to address these, since frankly I don’t have the time to go through all their literature and see if there are flaws there or if there actually might be merit
Exactly. This is why I wrote this article, Rishabh. Next time you encounter anti-vegan health misinformation online, try posting this article and ask for a response. Staunch carnists may not respond at all, but it will help other users to recognize health misinformation as what it is.
If anti-vegans push back with their own studies, say the following: "Those who understand science know that it's not about cherry-picking individual studies. You could also find individual studies of climate deniers. What counts is scientific consensus." - and then point them to this article, which is a high-level summary of the scientific consensus on the healthfulness of a well-balanced vegan diet.
Love this, especially the climate change analogy to talk about cherry-picked studies! My only slight concern if I was playing the devils advocate is that I hope there haven’t been cases where “scientific consensus is x” but then x turned out to be wrong. That wouldn’t automatically prove that veganism is unhealthy, but it would cast doubt potentially. Most carnists probably won’t even get here though
Glad you like the analogy! I understand your concern. But I don't think we need to worry about that when it comes to plant-based diets. Veganism isn't a novel phenomenon. There are tens of millions of vegans in the world, and (long-term) health effects of our diet have been thoroughly studied. There may be minor new findings and slight adjustments, but I don't expect a major correction. All these renowned organizations mentioned in the article wouldn't be pushing plant-based diets if they weren't sure that it's a good idea from a health perspective (among many other good reasons, of course). Even if there was a case in the past where "scientific consensus" was overturned, that doesn't mean much for today: science has made incredible progress in terms of methods and measuring instruments - even over the last 15 years.
Yes, the evidence is quite clear when you go through the arguments sufficiently, which I have. Understandably most people don't - they just stop the argument when they hear the side they like. Thus the problem. This article is great - also, Mic the Vegan on Youtube has a lot of really good videos that debunk specific ant-vegan health claims.
I fully agree with the points you've raised - and I'm also a big fan of Mic the Vegan. I feel it's important that we don't get lost in discussions around specific anti-vegan health claims. Because when we debunk one, carnists will just jump to the next misleading claim. It's important to focus on the big picture, instead - which I'm trying to do with this article. The 'science-backed endoresements' part, in particular, seems like a hard-hitting argument to me: https://veganhorizon.substack.com/i/150248046/science-backed-endorsements
I came to plant-based eating after reading a bunch of fairly mainstream nutrition sources. I noticed a few things:
1. Whole plant foods tended to have consistent evidence of benefits.
2. Animal products (with a few exceptions) were treated as "there is no evidence of harm below X level, but moderation is key!" The only animal foods I could find that weren't known to be associated with health risks were fat-free yogurt and fatty fish.
3. There are a few things that confound a lot of research on meat. One is that fat loss generally improves several markers of health (blood lipids, insulin resistance, etc.), and high-protein/low carb diets lead to short term weight loss. This can mask negative effects of eating meat. The other is that many older studies on saturated fat effectively replaced saturated fat with something just as bad or worse (trans fat or highly refined carbs), which made saturated fat look less bad than it is. More modern studies tend to be precise about what saturated fat is replaced with, yielding more consistent results.
4. I think a lot of diet advice from mainstream organizations tries to "meet people halfway" on meat/dairy/eggs. So guidelines included stuff like 1-2 servings per day, which makes it sound like you *should* eat meat/dairy/eggs. Even the AHA's guideline summary (which is better than most) devotes 7 words to plant protein sources and 22 words to animal products. "Healthy sources of protein (Mostly plants such as legumes, and nuts; fish and seafood; low-fat or fat-free dairy; and, if you eat meat and poultry, ensure it is lean and unprocessed.)"
The last straw for me was in a book about the MIND diet. The idea is that it takes known diets like DASH and Mediterranean, and tweaks them based on foods that are associated with brain health in old age from dietary studies. The author recommended 3 servings of legumes per *week*, since they met the criteria of the diet, then proceeded to also recommend lean chicken meat as an everyday food despite not meeting the rubric described earlier. (The explanation was that you need protein to avoid muscle loss in old age and chicken has protein in it. So even though lean chicken didn't affect dementia risk it was still useful.)
I think if mainstream diet recommendations were more intellectually honest, people would get a more accurate understanding of the health risks of eating animal foods. Something like "Eat a plant-based diet. Animal food is bad for you; minimize or eliminate consumption." as opposed to "Plants are good for you; maximize consumption and reduce meat/dairy/eggs." It's the same underlying idea, but the emphasis matters. In the latter framing, I think a lot of people (eg my parents) end up with the misapprehension that only small changes to SAD are required to make a healthy diet.
I'm very grateful that you took the time to share these insights. Very interesting! I didn't know many of these facts. And I totally agree with your conclusion: a statement like "Eat a plant-based diet. Animal food is bad for you; minimize or eliminate consumption." would be much more honest - and helpful - than current mainstream diet recommendations, which basically say the same thing, but in a confusing / misleading way. A really good point. Thanks again for stopping by, come again!
I’ve been a Vegan for twenty years and I was a vegetarian before that. On social media there are always dozens of what they presumably think are jokes from anti vegan people. Anyhow, according to them I should have been dead years ago, I mean, decades of not eating bits of dead animals, how awful. I’m healthier than most people I know and I think that bothers them. However, I’m the person who goes around moving snails, slugs and beetles etc from pavements so people don’t tread on them, so most people have just decided I’m eccentric.
Vegan for 20 years - that's impressive. I can totally relate with everything you said, thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts! Next time you encounter anti-vegan health misinformation online, post this article and ask for a response. Would be curious to hear how it goes.
You're not eccentric, Jean - you're just being compassionate. This has sadly become a rare trait. Be proud about it.
it is interesting that you use "plant-based" and vegan interchangeably...when technically MyPlate, flexitarian, pescatarian, & omnivores can all be "plant-based", i.e. based on or primarily plants without excluding all animal products...even honey which is part of the vegan diet.
This explicitly says that it's about "plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns". What you are referring to is "plant-forward". Given the title of my post, it will be fairly straightforward for everyone to understand that I'm talking about a purely plant-based diet here.
And then, it literally starts with: "Plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns ..." It certainly isn't an article that focuses on purely plant-based diets.
Again: Given the title of my post, it will be fairly straightforward for everyone to understand that I'm talking about a purely plant-based diet here. What exactly is the problem?
This is probably a consequence of me being terminally online, but the biggest things I’ve seen the anti-vegan and ex-vegan crowds (especially on their respective subreddits) say against veganism are that it’s less healthy. I’ve seen some attempts to argue crop deaths and monoculture as well, but really nothing on animal suffering since it’s basically impossible to win there. While we have studies citing these benefits of veganism, they push back with their own studies showing the opposite. I’m not really sure how to address these, since frankly I don’t have the time to go through all their literature and see if there are flaws there or if there actually might be merit
Exactly. This is why I wrote this article, Rishabh. Next time you encounter anti-vegan health misinformation online, try posting this article and ask for a response. Staunch carnists may not respond at all, but it will help other users to recognize health misinformation as what it is.
If anti-vegans push back with their own studies, say the following: "Those who understand science know that it's not about cherry-picking individual studies. You could also find individual studies of climate deniers. What counts is scientific consensus." - and then point them to this article, which is a high-level summary of the scientific consensus on the healthfulness of a well-balanced vegan diet.
Love this, especially the climate change analogy to talk about cherry-picked studies! My only slight concern if I was playing the devils advocate is that I hope there haven’t been cases where “scientific consensus is x” but then x turned out to be wrong. That wouldn’t automatically prove that veganism is unhealthy, but it would cast doubt potentially. Most carnists probably won’t even get here though
Glad you like the analogy! I understand your concern. But I don't think we need to worry about that when it comes to plant-based diets. Veganism isn't a novel phenomenon. There are tens of millions of vegans in the world, and (long-term) health effects of our diet have been thoroughly studied. There may be minor new findings and slight adjustments, but I don't expect a major correction. All these renowned organizations mentioned in the article wouldn't be pushing plant-based diets if they weren't sure that it's a good idea from a health perspective (among many other good reasons, of course). Even if there was a case in the past where "scientific consensus" was overturned, that doesn't mean much for today: science has made incredible progress in terms of methods and measuring instruments - even over the last 15 years.
That totally makes sense, thank you for this back and forth! Looking forward to reading more of your work :)
🥰
Yes, the evidence is quite clear when you go through the arguments sufficiently, which I have. Understandably most people don't - they just stop the argument when they hear the side they like. Thus the problem. This article is great - also, Mic the Vegan on Youtube has a lot of really good videos that debunk specific ant-vegan health claims.
I fully agree with the points you've raised - and I'm also a big fan of Mic the Vegan. I feel it's important that we don't get lost in discussions around specific anti-vegan health claims. Because when we debunk one, carnists will just jump to the next misleading claim. It's important to focus on the big picture, instead - which I'm trying to do with this article. The 'science-backed endoresements' part, in particular, seems like a hard-hitting argument to me: https://veganhorizon.substack.com/i/150248046/science-backed-endorsements
I came to plant-based eating after reading a bunch of fairly mainstream nutrition sources. I noticed a few things:
1. Whole plant foods tended to have consistent evidence of benefits.
2. Animal products (with a few exceptions) were treated as "there is no evidence of harm below X level, but moderation is key!" The only animal foods I could find that weren't known to be associated with health risks were fat-free yogurt and fatty fish.
3. There are a few things that confound a lot of research on meat. One is that fat loss generally improves several markers of health (blood lipids, insulin resistance, etc.), and high-protein/low carb diets lead to short term weight loss. This can mask negative effects of eating meat. The other is that many older studies on saturated fat effectively replaced saturated fat with something just as bad or worse (trans fat or highly refined carbs), which made saturated fat look less bad than it is. More modern studies tend to be precise about what saturated fat is replaced with, yielding more consistent results.
4. I think a lot of diet advice from mainstream organizations tries to "meet people halfway" on meat/dairy/eggs. So guidelines included stuff like 1-2 servings per day, which makes it sound like you *should* eat meat/dairy/eggs. Even the AHA's guideline summary (which is better than most) devotes 7 words to plant protein sources and 22 words to animal products. "Healthy sources of protein (Mostly plants such as legumes, and nuts; fish and seafood; low-fat or fat-free dairy; and, if you eat meat and poultry, ensure it is lean and unprocessed.)"
The last straw for me was in a book about the MIND diet. The idea is that it takes known diets like DASH and Mediterranean, and tweaks them based on foods that are associated with brain health in old age from dietary studies. The author recommended 3 servings of legumes per *week*, since they met the criteria of the diet, then proceeded to also recommend lean chicken meat as an everyday food despite not meeting the rubric described earlier. (The explanation was that you need protein to avoid muscle loss in old age and chicken has protein in it. So even though lean chicken didn't affect dementia risk it was still useful.)
I think if mainstream diet recommendations were more intellectually honest, people would get a more accurate understanding of the health risks of eating animal foods. Something like "Eat a plant-based diet. Animal food is bad for you; minimize or eliminate consumption." as opposed to "Plants are good for you; maximize consumption and reduce meat/dairy/eggs." It's the same underlying idea, but the emphasis matters. In the latter framing, I think a lot of people (eg my parents) end up with the misapprehension that only small changes to SAD are required to make a healthy diet.
I'm very grateful that you took the time to share these insights. Very interesting! I didn't know many of these facts. And I totally agree with your conclusion: a statement like "Eat a plant-based diet. Animal food is bad for you; minimize or eliminate consumption." would be much more honest - and helpful - than current mainstream diet recommendations, which basically say the same thing, but in a confusing / misleading way. A really good point. Thanks again for stopping by, come again!
I’ve been a Vegan for twenty years and I was a vegetarian before that. On social media there are always dozens of what they presumably think are jokes from anti vegan people. Anyhow, according to them I should have been dead years ago, I mean, decades of not eating bits of dead animals, how awful. I’m healthier than most people I know and I think that bothers them. However, I’m the person who goes around moving snails, slugs and beetles etc from pavements so people don’t tread on them, so most people have just decided I’m eccentric.
Vegan for 20 years - that's impressive. I can totally relate with everything you said, thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts! Next time you encounter anti-vegan health misinformation online, post this article and ask for a response. Would be curious to hear how it goes.
You're not eccentric, Jean - you're just being compassionate. This has sadly become a rare trait. Be proud about it.
it is interesting that you use "plant-based" and vegan interchangeably...when technically MyPlate, flexitarian, pescatarian, & omnivores can all be "plant-based", i.e. based on or primarily plants without excluding all animal products...even honey which is part of the vegan diet.
I’m well aware that a veganism is much more than just a plant-based diet. I have written about this. But your definition of a plant-based diet is not the one I’m using. See here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5466934/#:~:text=A%20plant%2Dbased%20diet%20consists,%2C%20eggs%2C%20and%20dairy%20products.
how about this? https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-a-plant-based-diet-and-why-should-you-try-it-2018092614760
This explicitly says that it's about "plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns". What you are referring to is "plant-forward". Given the title of my post, it will be fairly straightforward for everyone to understand that I'm talking about a purely plant-based diet here.
the article from Harvard literally says "What is a plant-based diet..."
And then, it literally starts with: "Plant-based or plant-forward eating patterns ..." It certainly isn't an article that focuses on purely plant-based diets.
Again: Given the title of my post, it will be fairly straightforward for everyone to understand that I'm talking about a purely plant-based diet here. What exactly is the problem?
"plant-based" is not necessarily vegan...but vegan is definitely "plant-based"...the use of the term "plant-based" as a synonym for vegan by marketing is used to reach a larger audience and to avoid negative connotations associated with vegan activism ... https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2018/01/15/Avoid-the-V-word-and-other-tips-to-boost-meat-free-and-dairy-free-sales#:~:text=Plant%2Dbased%20proteins%20may%20be,Good%20Food%20Institute%20(GFI).