
|
|
Thread Tools |
In 2009, the American Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics, the U.S.’s oldest, largest and foremost authority on diet and nutrition, also recognized that humans have no inherent biological or nutritional need for animals products: “It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”
Read the rest: http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/catching-up-with-science-burying-the-humans-need-meat-argument/#sthash.MCayQvXG.DcMawpGR.dpuf
This is fantastic news, go Australia!
It amazes me that even today in 2013 I still get arguments from people saying that humans NEED meat and you can't possibly be healthy without animal flesh. What am I then, a ghost? A figment of my own imagination?

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
Rest In Peas.
My usual answer: I have never heard a convincing reason to eat meat.
Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement |
|
I'm tempted to post this in a certain forum I have been on in the past, in which the majority of people there say they were once vegans--ranging from less than a year to almost twenty years--and found that their health began to suffer and they needed to go back to eating meat. These people are SO insistent that they are living proof of the human "need" for meat. It bugs the heck outta me.
But if I did post it, they wouldn't listen anyway, so...
Two observations here:
- The planning! It reads to me that vegetarian or vegan diets require planning and one could infer than an omni diet does not? This does dovetail with the "it was convenient" on the headstone.
- Vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life - why not vegan? Does this mean vegan diets are not appropriate? If they are lumping vegan with vegetarian why do they name them separately in the first sentence.
While I'm happy with the premise, the presentation could be better. The statement smacks of "cover my axe" - I wish they would come out with it in plain English without all the qualifiers.

While planning is important for those converting to vegetarian or vegan as adults, kids that are raised veg*n will automatically pick it up.
Yeah, I could understand that. I kind of took it, that it was a statement in general focusing on vegetarian diets, not implying anything about omni diets. Although if it were, it's unfortunate, because I don't think the SAD is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
I feel like they could just state that:
It just seems like a well planned or appropriately planned diet of any kind is appropriate.
I assumed that's why they specified:
At least that's my take on it.
You definitely clear up point 2 - I see it as not valid now that I have re-read it with your explanation.

Two observations here:
- The planning! It reads to me that vegetarian or vegan diets require planning and one could infer than an omni diet does not? This does dovetail with the "it was convenient" on the headstone.
- Vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life - why not vegan? Does this mean vegan diets are not appropriate?
Omnivorous diets do require adequate planning though, as is evinced in the millions of omnis who eat terribly and pay the consequences with their health. Society just doesn't focus as much on the need to plan out omnivorous diets because they are the norm and as such are not viewed as anything but inherently adequate and healthy.
It does say that vegan and total vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life, it's just off-set by commas right after the part I bolded.
The health, environmental, ecological and economic problems that meat eaters are causing is collateral damage.
My usual answer: I have never heard a convincing reason to eat meat.
This is great!
I've been so tired of people telling me I 'need' meat. I chose to be vegetarian for animal rights reasons but as soon as I cut out meat I have felt much healthier and more energetic. This definitely supports what I've seen with my own body!
Me too! I did it for the animals but feeling healthier is a great bonus.

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
This is great! I was just recently talking to someone, and explained that the trend in science and nutrition is in support of veggie diets, not the other way around. This just proves that point.
I am enjoying reading about the posters feeling more healthy after becoming veg*n. I stopped eating any kind of meat in 1990 and am now retired. I, too, went vegetarian for the animals but now that I am old, the health benefits are very apparent. I don't have any of the sicknesses that my friends and family are now putting up with, such as digestion problems, acid reflux, GERD, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and obesity. My eyes show no sign of cataracts or glaucoma. I did have to go through a bout of insecticide related cancer in 2004 but have recovered. My point is that going veg*n is a good thing to do at any age, but the health benefits don't stop.
After 23 years of not eating meat, I am living proof that you don't need it.
Thread Tools | |
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|
|
Posting Rules | |