Onnivoro vs. Carenze nutrizionali vegane

Typical fallacy of comparing a healthy mostly balanced Vegan diet to a SAD junk food diet. If you make a fair comparison, you find out that Vegans really can get ALMOST all the nutrients they need without supplements (except children who need more), and a balanced diet including animal products has NO deficiencies at all. That also depends on the quality of the food sources for both Vegan and a balanced diet.

The main nutrients lacking or low in a Vegan diet are B-12 and EPA/DHA.

What is the RDA of EPA/DHA? What are the deficiency symptoms? What is the level of toxicity for EPA/DHA?

I don't think there is a RDA. There could be, I just don't know of one. It takes years to become deficient though (except for children) so a daily allowance is actually kind of silly. The symptoms of long term deficiency are everything from scattered thinking, sterility, retinitis pigmentosa, paralysis, dementia, heart disease, Alzheimer's etc.

Okay, so the minimum required amount to avoid deficiency symptoms are unknown. But, in what amounts are EPA/DHA toxic? What are the symptoms of EPA/DHA toxicity? There is also evidence published in scientific journals that the ratio of omega-3 fatty acids to omega-6 fatty acids could actually have a greater impact on health than the amount of omega-3 ingested independent of omega-6. In your opinion, are there any reasons to consider these ideas?

The conversion rate of plant sourced short chain ALA to long chain DHA is 0-9% in humans. But the n-6 to n-3 ratio can further reduce that another 40% if you get too much n-6 and go past a 4-1 ratio. Men also have about a 4% lower conversion rate than women.

I didn't say the levels for deficiency are unknown, I said I personally don't know what they are. I also don't know if there even is a toxic level on the high end.

If you don't know the minimum amount required to avoid deficiency and you don't know the level of toxicity how can you know which diets provide amounts that fall between deficiency and toxicity levels?

Well its pretty easy isn't it? 0% comes from plants. So if your conversion rate is low either due to genetics or an improper n-6 to n-3 ratio from your diet, and all you eat is plants, you will end up deficient once your reserves run out. (unless you supplement) It doesn't take an Einstein to figure that one out.

The lowest conversion rate that I've found from ALA to DHA was 0.5%, but I couldn't find the minimum recommended amount or toxicity levels for DHA either. I guess that is why I don't state that particular diets are deficient or toxic in DHA.

You want me to look for you? I don't worry about it myself because I eat fish about once a month. But hey, if you are concerned, I would be happy to try and find more detailed information.

I guess I was trying to find a polite way of expressing an idea without using the word charlatan. Go easy on the mercury intake too.

Yeah mercury is an issue. Of course you realise the main source is agricultural run off from plowing the land. Mono culture row crops are the single most ecologically destructive thing we industrialised nations do to this planet.

Barcelo-Coblijn and Murphy (2009) published an extensive article in which they looked numerous refereed journal articles dealing with conversion of ALA to DHA and EPA, and the effect that ALA has on plasma lipid levels and the subsequent effect ALA has on cardiovascular disease. They concluded that consumption of ALA was not only able to fulfill the requirement for DHA, but also that ALA exerts identical effects as does DHA in a number of different physiological processes.

Did you actually ready the report? Or did you get a Vegan sanitised version?

Alpha-linolenic acid and its conversion to longer chain n-3 fatty acids: benefits for human health and a role in maintaining tissue n-3 fatty acid levels. Barceló-Coblijn G, Murphy EJ.Prog Lipid Res. 2009 Nov;48(6):355-74. Epub 2009 Jul 18

OK then. Since you at least read the abstract, do you want to rephrase your first post? This time without the obvious fallacies and slants?

To be candid, I cut and pasted the summary from Dr. Wayne Coates website that was selling chia, and I do not know where to find more than the abstract for the article. But, I'm sure that you get your info from fish oil salespersons.

That's ok. There is enough in the abstract for you to see yourself. Read it very closely and see for yourself how it was slanted. It is a subtle rewording but I am confident if you try, you can spot it. Might help you spot propaganda from any source in the future.

From the abstract: "…[R]emoval of dietary ALA promotes n-3 fatty acid inadequacy, including that of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and that many experiments demonstrate that dietary inclusion of ALA raises n-3 tissue fatty acid content, including DHA." You should read every sentence.

Yep that's part of it. You found one. Now try to find more. Keep going you will see more. Then compare it to your first post. It's a bit subtle, but I am sure you'll begin to see. I have confidence in you Hopy! Read it like a scientist would!

OK It's been 1/2 and hour and still no reply so I'll give you a hint. In the sidebar is a link called "see reviews" click it and go to "alpha-Linolenic acid supplementation and conversion to n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in humans." Read that and then read the first study again. Compare the wording. If you still don't get it, I will spell it out for you.

That study was done on "adults consuming western diets". Are "western diets" high or low in n-6?
…
I think you're cracking up. You are trying to use one study to refute the one that threatened your belief system. You are not using the original abstract to prove that Dr. Wayne Coates' summary of it is inaccurate.

Awe man! You missed it! And I had such confidence in you! I was sure you found it when you quoted "removal of dietary ALA" And I gave you a strong hint with the "alpha-Linolenic acid supplementation". The actual studies don't contradict. What they are saying in essence is that we humans need dietary sources of both ALA (primarily plant) and DHA (primarily animal). Makes sense right? We evolved eating both, since we are omnivores.

I would have replied sooner but somehow your answer got marked as spam and I didn't see it.. I promise you it wasn't me that did it.

I told you before, you have to think like a scientist for these studies to make sense, and read very carefully, without bias. What is happening in these studies is you have a baseline which is dietary sources of both ALA from plant and EPA/ DHA from animal. Then each one is removed and added in various combinations to see the effects on the others. Experimenting

Continued: These "experiments" are carried out in various combinations both in a environment where the n-6 to n-3 ratio is balanced, and in an environment where the n-6 to n-3 ratio is high (like a western diet). When you look at the sum total of all these studies you can begin to draw some conclusions. The original meta study you quoted from was not referenced properly by the Chia selling Dr. Wayne Coates. He twisted it subtly and ever so slightly to fit his agenda.

But it gets a little more complicated than just that. The emergency backup system is not equal. Breaking long chain n3 into short chain n3 is pretty easy. So if there is no dietary ALA from plants DHA/EPA levels will rapidly fall as reserves are used. However, converting short chain into long chain is much harder, so if there is no dietary EPA/DHA the body first makes EPA and more slowly, only then does it start making DHA which barely meets demand (hopefully) and levels don't rise at all.

So what does all THAT mean? Basically these metabolic "backup" systems are evolved to get humans through periods of scarcity. There may be little to no fruit or quality vegetation in winter or dry seasons, so humans use meat instead. There may be little to no prey in other seasons due to migrations or other factors, so humans use plants instead. But these backup systems, good as they are, are not evolved to handle very extended periods. They begin to fail unless a balanced diet is found.

Enjoy your methyl mercury dumbshit.

Sorry Eaton, Veggies don't shit. So I guess you are out of luck.

CARB THE FUCK UP

we are comparing vegans (who tend to be more health conscious over all) to a fat slob on SAD? nice….

I believe the Doctor is actually a vegan. so if he does say "whiny vegans" he may just be making witty comments either way he is stating facts. In other videos he shows numerous studies vegan "pitfalls". But in general he shows how eating meat is not that great. It comes with saturated fats, cholesterol, etc. But if people do not want to listen to simple facts I guess that is their choice. Consume more plants if you do not want to throw out meat

He leaves out zinc, vitamin D, omega 3, iron, and protein (relating to complete amino acids). The best place to get your nutrients is from food, and I can't help but notice that the problem for the meat eater seems to be not enough plants where the problem with the vegan seems to be not enough animal products.

Love the as hominem picture of the fit vegan and fat meat eater. Really points out the bias.

May I also point out there there are few doctors and "doctors" saying how superior the vegan diet is compared to all others, which makes the argument an appeal to authority?

7 or 8 people are commonly referenced with the rest of the nutritional and medical field being largely part of some elaborate conspiracy because the illuminati can't over price produce.

Yeah, I found it insulting at first, but now it seems that the most fit kind of vegan is being compared to the least fit omnivore, and he plays a numbers game, leaving out some for the vegans I might add.

The cure for omnivores seems to be more plants, but the cure for vegans would be more meat or at least animal products, which they can't do.

Zinc — cup of raw lentils = 61%, cup of raw cowpeas = 68%, cup of peanuts = 59%, cup of oats = 41%, half pound of raw whole wheat spaghetti = 72% … Source: nutritiondata
…
Vitamin D — the sun is the best source by far
omega 3 — flaxseeds (no mercury is found in flaxseeds)
iron — cup of cooked spinach 36%, head of romaine lettuce = 70%, cup of raw lentils = 80% …
protein? People are still confused about plant protein after all that's been written about it?

Yep, so then if these vitamins are so easily accessible that why is it that these are mission so often that they fall under common deficiencies?

It isn't protein in and of itself, it is complete protein. Just eat beans and rice and that can cover it, but it is still a problem for some people. This isn't the "you will fail at this" list, it is a list of what you need to know if you are a vegan so you can watch out for it.

Protein deficiencies only occur in cases of extreme poverty and starvation. I've never heard of vegans in countries where people generally do not die of starvation suffering from kwashiorkor (protein deficiency). Even unfortunate people who do suffer from kwashiorkor can be healed by eating plants, which have plenty of protein to prevent deficiency. All whole plant foods have all essential amino acids.

You are thinking about extreme cases, I am thinking about someone missing their needed dose of a certain Amino Acid. Though I suppose that if you have never heard of vegans in richer countries having the problem, it must be true, because you don't know about it.

I seriously doubt that people who are on the verge of starvation are vegan. I, like many people, have the luxury of refusing to eat animal body parts or breastmilks without encountering a malnourishment or starvation threat. However, unfortunate people who have starvation as part of their reality don't have the option of forgoing the eating of animal body parts or breastmilks because the threat of famine is continually looming.

I'm sure that those suffering from kwashiorkor would be pleased to devour a colony of insects.

Again, I am talking about some people who are going to be lacking in an essential amino acid. You can be lacking in a nutrient and eat quite well. What you are doing is a strawman fallacy.

No, you have the luxury to choose, as do I. You choose veganism and I choose omnivorism.

Great strides in feeding hungry populations actually have been made by science by using GMO crops. Funny that some vegans find GMO crops to be synonymous with poison.

I'm sure that a few wouldn't be apposed to cannibalism, though the fact remains that this problem is from eating a diet of just watery crushed grains because the people are poor. Give them any food with more nutrients and they become fine.

watch?v=2XpXVlnD1FU

Nuff said about deficiencies of vegans and omnivores deficiencies.

Wrong, if they had access to abundant amounts of grains like a Chinese rice worker they would not get kwashiorkor. Kwashiorkor strikes those who on the verge of starving to death.

GMO crops contain pesticides within the crops. What frustrates me about the crops is that (1) in the U.S. GMO foods are not labeled and (2) Monsanto brings suit against farmers if their GMO seed contaminates a farmer's crop that does not use GMO. GMO is more about forming a corporate monopoly of staple crops for corporate profits than feeding the world's hungry people. Don't fool yourself, if the goal was to feed the world's hungry that could easily be done today without GMOs.

You probably can't choose veganism even if you believe it is a good idea. Most who smoke 2 1/2 packs of cigarettes a day can't choose not to smoke even if abstaining seems like the better idea theoretically. Someone who consumes 15 alcoholic beverages a day can't choose to stop either, even if he or she intellectually understands the benefits of stopping. Most people get stuck in their ways and there is not much they can do about it.

I feel you don't know what you are talking about.

1) GMO crops aren't labeled because they are safe. You obviously disagree, but I can't change reality because it bothers you.
2) Yes, Monsanto filed a law suit and won, 3 times, however the supreme court that gave the final verdict said he didn't make a profit so he didn't owe any money. However after the few seeds were on his property, he used it to grow hundreds of acres, with 95-98% purity. That's what Monsanto was worrying about.

….People getting a few seeds and then growing crops on their own. I can understand you don't like them because the file so many suits to get their way, but they put a lot of money into producing the crops they do and they want to protect it. Please stop looking at it from only one side.

That's already essentially happened with corn. And the other crops would still exist. So if pure crops are so great, why are you worried about more expensive GMO crops? Could they be doing better?

Already tried both a vegetarian and vegan diet actually HopyHop1. It's the strangest thing, I don't seem to be increasing the amount of meat I eat, implying it isn't an addictive substance, just enjoyable. Isn't that interesting? It's almost as if you're talking out of your ass right now, but that couldn't be right? Vegans always know what they are talking about and never try to stretch the truth for their ideology.

Are you addicted to nuts HopyHop1? Fat and protein, like meat. Uh-oh. Careful!

1) The dangers of smoking cigarettes was only understood after centuries of ignorance. If you have faith in GMO crops than you should be able to chose them, while others who don't share your faith should be able to chose to avoid them.
2) You obviously don't see where Monsanto is going with this. Even defending a lawsuit creates a loss. And, Monsanto decided to strike preemptively by filing suit instead of defending suits under a trespass theory.

Sure, and most chain smokers have tried to quit smoking at least once. Most alcoholics have tried to give up drinking at least once. It's not surprising that you didn't last on a vegan diet. If whole food vegan diets became commonplace, heart disease could become a freak incident instead of the number one killer in many Western nations.

I eat nuts and seeds sparingly. However, unlike animal body parts and breastmilks, plant foods contain no cholesterol.

Except it wasn't that I wanted to give up meat, it was that I was trying the diet for myself. That right there is why I can no long take vegans and vegetarians seriously. The notion that there exists a secular form of sin, that if you give up something that could be enjoyable, it somehow makes you noble, enlightened even. But it is just a diet choice.

And no. There are other factors besides cholesterol when it comes to heart disease. Plants can cause inflammation, leading to heart disease.

Cholesterol is not like trans fat. It is something to eat in moderation, but although we do make it ourselves we can use the cholesterol we eat. The problem is excess, age, and a sedentary lifestyle. Eventually, if you live long enough, something's gotta give. Chronic diseases have always been around, usually in the rich because they lived a sedentary lifestyle and were more likely to live longer, meaning infectious diseases or work didn't kill them first.

Science seems to disagree with you.

Science doesn't cradle ideas, they run them into brick walls. If an idea is sound, when you examine the pieces what you should find is the brick wall. When it comes to veganism all I see are the fragments of the idea that veganism is the perfect diet for humans. As I said, science seems to disagree with you. I cannot keep talking to an unscientific pseudo-intellectual who likes to use emotional and flawed arguments to force their morality on others.

Goodbye hopy.

You are responding to arguments that I never propounded. You may want to try to address what is actually typed for further discourse.

a diet high in whole grains, whole fruits , veggies and legumes supplemented by lean meat/ fish 3to 4 times per week is the best. most americans do not eat wnough greens and whole fruits and eat way too much meat.

Wait, what? You have a similar video called "Long term Vegan Bone health" which suggests vegans and omnivores have similar bone density. This study contradicts this study of bone fracture, no?

I'm a vegan but I really don't appreciate how you compare meat eaters to us. You make the meat eaters out as fat slobs when really meat eaters come in all shapes and sizes, much like vegans do. If I were a meat eater, this would make it less likely for me to go vegan. It's great that you're giving out valid facts but I don't think the negative stereotypes are really necessary to get people to care.

Why didn't you compare vegetarians to vegans instead?

Kind of funny that I get more than recommended of all that you listed that omnivores are deficient in. Oh wait that is just because you chose to look at those omnivores who eat shit 90 percent of the time instead of the nutritionally conscience omnivores.

why do vegans always see "meat eaters" as fat people who ONLY eat meat???? Omnivore just means you have meat in your diet as well as plants, it doesnt mean all you eat are just fatty meats

Comparing the best vegan to the worst omnivore seems a little skewed, don't you think?

like your humor! But B12 and Iodine you can get very easy from sea-alges/chlorella, just mix them both (do not take too much iodine, check the ingredients of the seaweeds!!!)
Calcium is often deficient in numbers eaten but not actual absorbtion. Should eat a lot of greens, though.
Not all meat eaters are fat, but as you come to ages of 40-45 they somehow get bigger. 😉

Wait a second, there is a difference between an omnivore and someone who mainly eats meat.

calcium in potatoes? bread? isnt it good?

so 600mg or 1000mg of calcium per day? I find different information everywhere.

0:25 I eat meat but look like the guy on the left, certainly NOT like the right! I'm slim, work out, and even (!) dress properly. I mean, what's wrong with this doctor?! I wanted to learn about plant based diets and thought he had objective information. Instead I found a prejudiced man who hates meat eaters! Does anyone know of an objective doctor?

Perhaps we should petition the US Catholic Bishops to begin Meatless Fridays like it once was. Even one day meatless for 25% of the US population would be very helpful.

You said that Kale and broccoli is nearly twice as well adsorbed calcium when compared to milk. Though all other literature have fractional calcium absorption values no where double that when compared to milk. The value is probably closer to 25% more available calcium in Kale than milk (very far from double)

if omnivores eat everything then how the hell can they lack all these nutrients?? I get all this shit with what I eat.

Paging Dr. Gregor, can we get an update to this video that is more in depth?

omnivores get everything a vegan has, plus further things, so no this is incredibly biased non-factual video. because an omnivore can't have deficiencies in a place a vegan doesn't.

A bit biased don't you think?

It doesn't matter if you're vegan or omnivore. If you eat correctly, you will have no deficiency. Of course, if you eat randomly, you probably will have many deficiencies. I mean, if some omnivores skip the veggies and fruits, then the logic says that they'll have vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

So based on the image I have to assume that every fit person I see on the street is a vegan? Why worry then? Obviously the vast majority of population is vegan, not just 1% as some say. Even I am one apparently.

This video right here, is the main reason why I will probably never, or definitely not in the near future switch to vegan diet.

Twisting the facts, manipulating and lying, like a cult.

I mean comparing the health aware vegan to an average omnivore who does not care about his health!? really?

this is supposed to convince me?

Health-wise there is no good reason to switch to vegan diet, you can only expect to supplement or have difficulties with B12, iron, zinc, DHA, EPA and who knows what else. Health-wise there is 0 problems with balanced and properly planned omnivore diet!! Moral aspect, environment and factory farming is maybe a valid field of debate. Try comparing a vegan who eats unhealthy processed foods, sugar, etc, to a omnivore who eats 85% veggies + animal products.

Thank you nutritionfacts.org for showing that you are biased. And that your statements are based on feelings and not facts!

Many meat eaters are deficent in B12 too!

EAT SARDINES!!! for all the vegans that care about the emotional well being of a sardine, have fun with your dementia osteoporosis, fuccc sardines imma eat some you vegan cucks

Why the funny and hate comments. It’s simply, most vegans are slim and most fat people are meat eaters

I have to ask. If a vegan is deficient in three things, then how is an omnivore- a being that can eat everything a vegan can eat- deficient in MORE? These numbers just aren't adding up.

loooool
omnivore means,that you eat both vegetables and meat wtf is with the first picture?

Sesame seeds are the highest food source of calcium. I eat an ounce every day.

I prefer to get my calcium from the tip ends of bones where it's nice, soft and surrounded by tasty crunchy cartilage. That or I go for bone in fish from time to time.

Wait, where am I again?

Can someone provide me with the research that concluded what vegans vs omnivores are deficient in

This video is deceptive, it compares the know deficiencies of an optimum vegan diet (done naturally minus supplements intervention) with a substandard diet – S.A.D. (Standard American Diet). Why not compare optimum vegan diet with optimum whole foods diet (each without any supplement intervention)?

Humans are herbivores

I don’t care!
I want my meat!

Anyone know of a study that compares: 1) unhealthy vegans to healthy omnivores, or just 2) healthy omnivores to healthy vegans for the BMI, 3) high fiber omnivores to equal fiber levels in vegans for BMI?

Found it: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/6/1267/4648730

An updated version of this video would be nice. Are omnivores really deficient in calcium, with all the milk I mean?

Vegetarian not vegan have bone injuries. Then multiply and add vegan

Onnivoro vs. Carenze nutrizionali vegane

91 Risposte a “Onnivoro vs. Carenze nutrizionali vegane”

Red Ronnie: Come sono diventato vegano - Rai2, Nemo, Nessuno Escluso con Enrico Lucci 7.12.16

Quando dico che non sono vegano, la gente fatica a capire.

Alimentazione su base vegetale o plant-based.

Vorresti MANGIARE PIÙ VEGETALE ma non sai da dove cominciare? #alimentazionesana #veganuary