And many people are still healthy while on a vegetarian diet so it is possible.
Also commercials and just society around you influences your cravings. I think if you would grow up somewhere where there is no dairy for example, you would not crave it.
Your brain can’t override how your metabolism and gut work. Your brain can’t change the bacteria in your gut, or the shape of your teeth.
Omnivorism is not an impulse, it’s an attribute of the species. It’s part of who we are.
I also don’t believe that vegans are healthy. Sure, they don’t starve (omnivores, after all). But I want to see their regular glucose levels and their mortality rates. The way I eat (omnivore) is ancient, veganism is brand new.
A quick google finds studies supporting the idea that his results are typical. Here's one from 2016, which finds that more plant protein correlates with lower mortality, and more animal protein with higher mortality: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
But as I said above, from an environmental perspective I don't think widespread vegetarianism is a feasible policy goal, so I'm not trying to tell you what to eat. Getting our meat from vats instead of animals is what I think will save the world.
There are some studies that are coming out that undermine your idea that vegans are inherently healthier, such as the notice that vegetarians appear to have higher rates of cavities than the population at large. If you ask an anthropologist you'll know this is a big deal, because dental health is a great indicator of overall health.
I think all the arguments about the vegetarianism saving the world are bunk, and a convenient reason for us all to not talk about the real issue: oil.
My meat comes from animals that graze on grass, as has been the case for millenia. The millions of buffalo that ran around north America a few centuries ago didn't warm the planet with their farts, so why should properly managed grass fed cows do the same?
On the other hand, what is new is large scale industrial monoculture agriculture. I am dubious to the concept that we can transition the world over to plant based without planting a lot of soy, something that I think is bad.
Side note: we have been managing cattle poorly for years. The proper way is to pen them into relatively tight (but not cramped) portions of the grazing land, and then rotate them from section to section regularly. This mimics the way that herding animals react to predators (cluster up), and gives the grasses time to recover and sequester carbon. It's also far more land efficient than other methods, which is nice.
Edit: it looks like 84% of world wide calories come from plants already. Doesn’t seem to be doing anything to stop global warming to me. Maybe it’s the fact that we’re still using fossil fuels instead?
I think I've read the same books as you, and agree with much of what you say. I would love to see us switch all our cattle over to Allan Savory's methods, and if lab-grown meat works out, maybe some ranchers will survive by providing premium grass-fed.
I've also read a stack of the better-known low-carb/paleo books. It just didn't work out for me, my results were horrific. It does seem to work for some people. Regarding cavities, perhaps there are tradeoffs to every diet.
In any case, as I said above I don't think vegetarianism is a way to save the world. Lab-grown meat is what will help save the world. Getting off oil will also be a huge help.
I’d be far more interested in comparing vegans to people who believe that meat is good for them and are very health aware. Paleo or Keto individuals would be a good cohort to pick. That would measure technique and not intention, because both paleos and vegans are intending to be healthy.
I’m curious what your results were on low carb. I work out with a cohort of low carb eaters, and we lost an avg of 30lbs when we switched. I personally lost 40, most of it fat (thanks Dexa scan!). I’d also be curious about what your brother cut out from his food supply that helped. Obviously we’re deep into anecdote land at this point though.
I’m dubious about lab grown meat. As previously mentioned in an edit, 84% of the worlds calories are just straight up plants, and it doesn’t seem to be helping much. But if it provides cheaper meat to the masses, I might be persuaded.
I am however very conservative when it comes to introducing new ingredients into the human food supply. I think we’ve done a lot of harm in the past 30 years by adding a lot of seed (sorry, “vegetable”) oils into our food supply. Just because something isn’t acutely toxic doesn’t mean you should be eating it all the time, and I will personally take the exact same approach to lab grown meat. I’ll probably be the last person to switch over, if I ever do.
Edit: it turns out the original study claiming that meat was producing half of the greenhouse gasses was flawed, and the authors had to revise it. The actual number is 3.9% of US emissions, with the rest of agriculture representing 5.1% of US emissions.
Source: https://www.eco-business.com/opinion/yes-eating-meat-affects...
It is limiting your choices in restaurants obviously, but suppose you live in some vegetarian community. Is this community limiting its potential? While if you live in a community that exclusively hops around on one leg, the answer is obviously yes, for the first example I'm not sure.
As a species we are evolving, as an individual you are not. You can argue that humans might become herbivores in the next few 10,000 years, but don't expect to see it in your lifetime.
I also would argue that the individuals who are trying to consciously work against where we've evolved from will face some negative effects, even if their intentions are good.
> the two incisors do not have to determine anyone's diet.
We actually have 4 incisors and 4 canines, for a total of 25% of our teeth. In general teeth are a good indication of what a species eats, since the teeth and the rest of the organism evolved together. Teeth are also a fantastic indicator of the health of the individual, anthropologists use the rate of cavities to tell how healthy the individual and society was.
Coincidentally, vegetarians have a higher rate of cavities than the population at large.
> Now if you don't want to be be a vegetarian fine but don't tell me it's impossible because that's just not true.
I would kindly appreciate you not making up what I'm arguing and putting words into my mouth. I'm not saying humans are obligate carnivores, I'm saying they're omnivores. That means that we can survive off plants, I just think it's a bad idea.
Individuals do not evolve new genetic features after birth. You will not change your teeth structure genetically in your lifetime, unless if you take up hockey or bare knuckle boxing. Your kids might have a mutation from you that’ll change their teeth, but statistically they won’t.
There’s also an ongoing debate about to what degree humans face evolutionary pressures anymore. Without some selection to pick one mutation over the other, it’s unclear which direction we will evolve.
Teeth are a good record of how the individual evolved to eat, which is indeed in the past. But you have no idea where the evolution will take us, and that’ll take thousands of years, and again individuals do not evolve. So yes, teeth still matter.
I’m glad you have good teeth, but I’ll remind you that anecdotes are not data.
> I highly doubt our teeth will change at all because people don't die from lack of a certain tooth.
Yes, I made this point. But that was not true when humans evolved into our current form, right around when the rest of us evolved. Until relatively recently, humans did die from dental cavities, and we haven't changed significantly in 1,000 years, so the point stands.
> nor is it anecdotal that vegetarians have better dental hygiene.
Which would be a good point if I was trying to claim that. I said they had worse health, which is diet and behavior related.
The big one for me is K2. There is only one vegan source of K2, natto, all other sources are either animal or meat based. K2 is critical for a lot of things, including tooth cells.
Vegans and vegetarians are showing higher rates of tooth decay (not cavities, I misread) than the rest of the population[3]. Doesn't really matter how much they're brushing, it's diet driven.
> Again, individuals do evolve
[Citation needed]
> which is not the same as suddenly getting new distinct physical features half way through your life
You're right that meaningful mutations might be at the protein level, but you're not going to start synthesizing brand new proteins either.
0. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/l...
1. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq...
2. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/53371/what-is-me...
3. https://www.deltadentalwa.com/blog/entry/2018/07/vegan-diet-...
Honestly have no idea what you're saying about teeth anymore, your whole point was that our teeth prove we are meant to have omnivorous diets, which I was arguing against because our teeth are relics just like our nails, they do not matter anymore, so I still don't know how your point stands. They are merely links to our past evolution and what we used to eat 100's of thousands of years ago, long before we discovered cooking which some have linked to a spike in our evolution to our current status.
You literally said "Coincidentally, vegetarians have a higher rate of cavities than the population at large." Cavities are tooth decay btw...not sure why you think they are two different things.
Sorry, but they really don't, and the study you're pushing trying to claim that shit was done on isolated indigenous populations which has nothing to do with vegetarians in the rest of the world who are able to get K2 from plenty of non meat foods like cheese or eggs. More than likely, those isolated tribes are vegan more-so than vegetarian without access to milk-based products or soy beans. Also you get K2 from your gut as well.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1492156
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/changing-our-dna-...