Ask Surly Amy: Vegan, Vegetarian and Pescatarian Diets
Dear Surly Amy,
I’m trying to find non-biased sources on health, longevity, etc, related to Vegan/Vegetarian/Pescetarian diets, but am having an incredibly hard time finding any article online that isn’t teeming with bias (Vegan websites are super biased, btw). What are the health facts, pure and simple?
~Patrice
Dear Patrice,
Unfortunately the health facts aren’t pure and simple.
Different people require different types of diets due to allergies, varying metabolisms and health conditions and there is no sure one way to eat for everyone. Vegan diets can be very helpful for people with heart disease or for people who are trying to lower cholesterol but even that statement has a lot of variables in it.
In general, eating a diet with fresh veggies, grains, fish and a minimal amount of meat along with regular exercise is considered relatively sound advice. But again, even that statement varies in it’s specific implications from person to person. Is the person suffering from illness? Is the person obese or underweight? Do they smoke or drink and are they exercising? These and other issues all come into play when choosing what we should or should not eat and estimating what effect that diet will have on health and lifespan.
Personally, I try to maintain a pescetarian diet that sometimes leans toward vegan. My choices are based on weight and cholesterol control, family history of illnesses and the fact that I feel eating animals is morally wrong. But I am no angel and I do slip up now and then, especially when traveling and I also can’t honestly justify why eating fish would be ok but eating a cow isn’t in my mind. These choices I make are mainly my personal decisions that factor into a larger personal health regimen.
As for longevity, anyone who tells you that one diet is objectively better for all people does not have the data to back up that claim. Unless of course these people are telling you to eat butter and sugar all day, then we can find data to prove why that would be very bad. But the general themes of “recommended diets” are usually not that far off the mark.
I asked my friend, a weight-loss specialist and surgeon, Dr Terry Simpson if vegans do indeed live longer. His full response has been posted on his website. He goes over some of the recent and popular studies that people cite when referencing health benefits or dangers of specific diets and then mentions a meta study from 1999:
In 1999 a metastudy combined data from five western countries and reported mortality ratios. This broad study showed fish eaters (pescetarians) had a the lowest ratio of 0.82, followed by vegetarians at 0.84. Occasional meat eaters were at 0.84 and vegans as well as regular meat eaters had a ratio of 1.0. (The lower the number the longer the lifespan.) – American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Vol 70 (3): 516S-524S – September 1999
He goes on to conclude:
While there are thousands of internet sites concluding that vegans live much longer- there is no study that agrees with that conclusion. What conclusion can you come to? Probably that eating fish is a good thing- eating too much processed food may not be a good thing. Best to pick great parents, don’t overeat, and a bit of red wine and chocolate are not bad things.
In other words, your genes probably play a bigger role in determining how long you will live than what you had for lunch does. My advice? Go to see an MD, get a physical done and then ask your doctor what diet is best for you at this particular point in your life.
Got a question you would like some Surly-Skepchick advice on? Send it in! We won’t publish your real name, unless you want us to and creative pseudonyms get bonus points! Just use the contact link on the top left of the page.
Actually your genes play a minor role in health. What you eat plays a far bigger role (read “The China Study” It’s the largest study on diet, disease and lifestyle in the world!).
Additionally, it has been discovered that phytonutrients, found only in plant foods, are capable of upgrading good genes in your body and downgrading bad genes. However, you must eat lots of different color veggies and dark leafy greens to accomplish this. Phytonutrients work synergistically together and orchestrate good health through tens of thousands of these micro-nutrients.
The China Study does have some significant problems and I don’t think it was nearly as large as you state.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/385/
Pretty much all “debunking” theories have been debunked.
Guess that depends how you define “minor”.
“Human family studies have indicated that a modest amount of the overall variation in adult lifespan (approximately 20–30%) is accounted for by genetic factors.”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c33t00111p744u51
Synergising my phytonutrients! And all this time I’d been vainly attempting to leverage my antioxidant paradigm shift.
Upgrading good genes? Really? Maybe I should read up on the subject first, but to be honest, I’m not really buying it.
I’ll have the canned worms. ;-)
Eating canned worms is EVIL you MONSTER!!!
C’mon n join me, they’re fun! And no eyes and no souls; so what else do you want in a canned meat like product?
Over on Twitter, bug_girl is posting videos about eating bugs :p
It’s important to remember… in this life no one gets out alive.
Double plus good summary, Amy.
Seems to me that we evolved as omnivores. Anything taken to excess makes me wonder, why?
I decided to lose some weight this year. Not that I was overweight, just in the upper range of normal. I’m now close to the lower end of the “normal” range and plan to stay there :)
I still eat a lot of junk because I’m busy, but I made one significant change. I eat less. I also exercise a little bit, though I was never really out of shape in that sense.
I have reduced the amount of meat I eat too, and I reduced sugar intake a lot about 7-8 years ago, but that has nothing to do with my current weight loss.
The point of dieting should be to be healthier, not to just lose weight. If you push yourself through a diet for then “let go”, you’re back to square one in no time.
Just my personal anecdotal take on it :)
And I have a friend trying to tell me that grains, dairy and legumes are all POISON! Because of the inflammation and the leptin, oh god, don’t forget the leptin!
Interesting discussion, decreasing meat definitely seems to be a good idea but it kind of seems being vegan is pretty extreme, (at med school) we often hear “being vegan is incompatible with life.” Seems hard to maintain all the right nutrient levels without supplements, and some don’t believe in taking supplements, but makes for interesting cases for us I guess-tentany and cardiac arrhythmia from low calcium etc.
I think there are ethical ways of eating animal products and it would be nice to eat meat on special occasions. Although I was wondering about insects, they seem like a good source of protein that other cultures use, and they might be similar to fish in seeming exempt from the emotional/moral thing. Insectarian? Somehow I don’t see it catching on in Hollywood. Personally I feel I could only eat them if they were deep fried, and then the whole healthiness thing may be irrelevant. Would you guys become insectarians if data showed it was the ultimate diet?
I don’t know whether you eat shrimp or other crustaceans, but if you do, then what could you possibly have against insects? Just think of them as ‘land shrimps’ or ‘terrestrial prawns’ or something. Personally, I wouldn’t really have a problem with adding insects to my diet, but I would still eat meat and fish and other sources of protein, so I guess I wouldn’t become an ‘insectarian’.
” “being vegan is incompatible with life.” ” …. and that view is not extreme just how? how do all vegans cope with life just fine then..
Qualification: without the aid of supplements and other modern food technology.
As a smart guy said once: ‘Eat less cake!’.
I come from exactly the same place as the questioner. I had a gut instinct that vegetarianism was better for me, but many of the sources I found were so wooful that it made me want to eat of horse out of spite.
After much reading I came to pretty much the conclusion Amy did. No one diet is right for everyone. A good diet for the average person involves a great variety of foods. Don’t eat too much of any one thing and try to keep the entire calorie count reasonable. The thing that’s wrong with meat (or worms) other than evilness is it provides so much protein and fat that it makes it hard to get good amounts of the other things you need without blowing your calorie count.
I know it sounds glib and unscientific, but Michael Pollan’s advice is not a bad rule of thumb: Eat food, not too much, mostly vegetables, with a beer chaser. (Okay I added that last bit.)
It’s been a while since I’ve commented, but I had to come out of hiding for this post. I am in the same boat. I was even vegan for three years (and argued for it on here :-P) The conclusion I eventually came to is there are plenty of sound moral arguments on why we shouldn’t eat meat, but very little convincing health and environmental arguments. Eventually, after having a child and starting to worry whether my choices were going to affect her growth, I came to the uncomfortable decision to start allowing some animal products again. I think education and moderation are the key and the problems with the industry today might not be as bad if everyone just moderated themselves and allowed for variety and whole foods in their diet.
I skipped straight down to the bit that said “chocolate and red wine is OK”
I’m fully vegan for moral reasons.
The reason it tends to be healthier is because you are forced to eat nothing but plants, therefore you generally need to mix a lot of different vegetables together in 1 dish to get a good taste, which ensures you get tons of vitamins. And a good taste you can get!
People who eat more meat are much more apt to rely on a big piece of meat as their main tasty staple and eat vegetables on the side, usually FAR less vegetables than a vegan would eat, so a vegan generally gets better nutrition, less fat. Of course there are exceptions, but that’s the general trend I’d postulate.
As far as morally, I honestly am not even sure how we can have a debate on gender equality when we support holocaust like conditions for animals. And don’t kid yourselves, no matter how you TALK about free-range you likely don’t take the time to get free-range and mostly buy the horribly killed stuff.
I think it’s pretty hypocritical if you eat meat to somehow want to talk about equality. It’s basically saying “I want equality, but I reserve the right to eat food that was tortured like jews in the holocaust.” If you don’t then, you’re morally consistent and I thank you!
If you have any doubts that it is like the holocaust, watch this (for starters). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUkHkyy4uqw
What is this, an episode of “Name that Logical Fallacy”?
I appreciate what you are trying to say, really, I do. But invoking the actions of Hitler is no way to get your point across to a room of rational thinkers.
Also, you can eat meat and still discuss gender equality. In fact, you could murder your next door neighbor and still discuss gender equality. Murder is a very, very bad thing and so is the meat industry (in my opinion) but that does not negate ones ability to have a discussion about equality. And just because things are bad in one arena doesn’t mean we can’t discuss anything else. That is pretty much the Dawkins argument repackaged. Oh, hush with your talk of equality here…. animals are dying elsewhere. Come on. Really?
And ps…. This post is about health benefits and the longevity effects of various diets. I mentioned my personal eating habits as a way to illustrate that we all make choices based on personal dietary needs and often, our desires.
I am hoping we can stay on topic.
Of course we can talk about it. I’m not saying women should have unequal societal rights just because another group is experiences unequal rights.
I am however saying it’s hypocritical to stand for the equality one group while you’re actively oppressing another. Which if you’re supporting factory farming by eating meat that comes from there, is most certainly oppressing another group.
Also, it’s correct to invoke Hilter because the death camp conditions are the same as slaughterhouse conditions.
Also, the difference between what I’m saying and what Dawkins was saying is this.
Dawkins was saying: Women elsewhere are far more oppressed, so you should stop talking about your petty issues.
What I meant to say: Feminism is a worthy cause that should be furthered, but it is hypocritical to oppress another group at the same time. So as you know how it is to be oppressed, seriously examine how your meat eating habits are contributing to massive cruelty towards and suffering amongst animals.
I extend my argument to any group really (like tea-partiers by saying “if you value freedom, then how do you oppress others?” etc.) And I agree, just because animals are suffering, doesn’t mean that feminism shouldn’t be continually fought for.
The whole ethical debate about eating meat is interesting in itself, but you are not being very reasonable about the subject by going completely Godwin on us.
Yes, there’s plenty of bad stuff being done to animals. Both in the food industry and not least in alternative medicine, especially TCM.
I do eat meat, but I am conscious about these factors.
Firstly, not all meat production is cruel. Where I come from there’s still a lot of relatively traditional farming going on. I am quite familiar with it, half my family are farmers. The rules and regulations are strict here. Nearly all animals, i.e. sheep, pigs and cattle, are free range for the part of the year that allows it. Keeping animals locked in and on grain all year is not economically viable anyway. So they’re treated pretty well. But they are being kept in captivity for the sake of eventually being killed and eaten.
The question then is: is that in itself ethical? I am unsure …
On one side I see a society that has become increasingly detached from nature and the reality of it. On the other side, eating meat (and getting it) is a part of our biological make up. Our digestive system has adapted to the mixed food most of us (should) eat.
Another point is the somewhat naive way many people, especially those who have little or no contact with real animals, think of them. They think of them as people with the same feelings as we do, especially if they’re cute. Animals do not have the mental capacity of humans. Farm animals when treated properly, show all the signs of being well content with their existence. They’re getting fed, looked after, treated for illness and protected from predators. From a biological point of view, farm animals are well adapted and highly successful.
There is a lot of abuse of animals though. Some are closer to us, we don’t usually eat those, we just torture them as misformed pets. I am strongly opposed to the ways dogs are bred these days having once owned a dog myself that suffered from breeding and had to be put down. That is surely torture for the sake of vanity. Dogs aren’t accessories! I am not very happy about the fur-industry either for that matter.
So, no, I’m not opposed to eating meat generally. I do however strongly believe that as moral beings we should treat them well. We do after all exploit them, but they also benefit from our care when we treat them properly. Nature is cruel. We should not be. But we’re still all part of nature even if people tend to think of themselves as special (thanks to, mostly, religion).
Good response. I’ll get back to you with an equally well thought out one when possible.
Also to Amy, I do understand that the post was about nutrition, but I feel it’s important to bring the moral issue up. I’ll be more coherent when I have time later tonight.
Sorry about the initial lash-out, I get kind’ve emotional about this issue :).
Some studies have shown that plants can feel pain.
How can you advocate for animal equality while supporting the mass slaughter of our vegetable friends? It’s hypocritical.
See, any argument can be taken to an absurd extreme.
I’m on the heavy side of healthy. I am a pescatarian. I became one because “white” and “red” meat hurt my stomach. My philosophy has evolved to “go animals” but really, I care about me.
I don’t necessarily believe in this, but I’ve heard that diff body types require diff nutrition. Seems okay, if not taken too far. (I forget all the specifics). I have a friend I used to go walking with. We used my app to make sure we always walked aerobically fast and were in slight unspoken competition with each other. She is skinny; I am not. She thrives on carbs; they make me tired. She borderlines anorexic, I borderline eating too much. She loves donuts and ice cream and other sweets, I crave salt: potato chips and popcorn.
Anecdotal of course, but in our many convos about this, I think I should actually be eating more protein, and leave her the carbs. I wonder a bit if the reason I have no sweet tooth is because for me, sweets are unhelpful/unhealthy.
Why is a surgeon being used as an authority on nutrition on a site that should be espousing critical thinking? Who’s next, Dr. Oz? If people have diet questions they should find a professional in that area, specifically an RD, LDN.
Well – a surgeon as an authority about nutrition and critical thinking- that would be me- and when your field is weight loss and nutrition is what you write about, have done research, then yes- probably have some authority here- but we try not to speak from “authority” instead it is what we know based upon research – never credentials. While I am on tv, please don’t compare me to Dr. Oz.
One can argue about animals and abuse – I get bored with that topic. As an Alaska Native (and Native Alaskan) – nature is cruel – when I watch Orcas thrash baby seals and eat them, or eagles take squirrels to their nests, or grizzly bears eating cubs – nature is cruel. City folk tend not to know that – and so that is just not an interesting discussion for me. If you don’t want to eat meat- don’t. In Alaska we call vegetarians bad hunters.
My fellow skeptic Evo Terra just lost 14 pounds on a diet of beer and sausages. During that time his cholesterol dropped, his triglyceride level dropped, and his liver enzymes didn’t budge. Would a RD say that would happen — nope. But we did the test, we did science.
Here is the bottom line- we don’t know nearly enough about nutrition as some would make us believe.
And the China Project; that was horrible work, and the conclusions they made did not correlate with the data they came up with. For a great analysis of that see rawfoodsos.com
//In Alaska we call vegetarians bad hunters.//
Thus you’re going into your research with bias. I’m guessing the research and data you select make your conclusions will be commensurate with that bias then.
Comments like the one below are pretty loaded because you don’t quote the data, the study that the data came from, or the fact that other factors that might attribute to that number. However, you immediately correlated it to “veganism may drop your life expectancy”. That’s a dishonest correlation of the type Fox News would do.
//In fact, vegans have a life expectancy that is less than pescetarians (fish eaters) and omnivores//
If you’re a doctor then you know that the only thing you can’t get from a vegan diet is B12, and you can supplement that. There are plenty of plant sources for calcium, complete proteins, omega 3s, and other nutrients animals are rich in.
Both vegans and meat eaters can be just as healthy as one another, the key as your website says is to *get a complete diet and exercise*. It’s bullshit to say that a vegan who eats a well rounded diet, exercises, and accounts for the B12 via supplementation is somehow unhealthy. If you’re saying that, then your moosehead background is definitely affecting your science.
The honest answer to a healthy lifestyle is PROPER NUTRITION and exerci