Talk:Vegetarian nutrition/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Vitamin B12 is light sensitive. So does Marmite's claim of B12 make sense as it is stored in glass jars?

Nov 8, 2004 A major deletion is that I removed a table, and the paragraph explaining that it proves vegetarians' protein is adequate and that protein-combining isn't necessary, because it was not only redundant (see history: There was already a citation of ADA in that section, with the explanation that the ADA link says vegetarianism provides enough protein and that no effort is needed to 'combine' them aside from a normally diverse/balanced diet, & see other links which also already proved the same), but, the table was also misleading:

Cysteine/tyrosine aren't IAA's! (indispensible, or essential, AA's) As is unanimously agreed: try google. And, (as is well-known) rice isn't a 'complete' protein, as the table & associated paragraph made it seem was being claimed!

(Also deleted was the claim that complementary proteins don't even need to be eaten within 'a few...days' of each other; the ADA citation recommends a diverse diet because proteins from one meal can last and combine with proteins days later -- but not more than a few days, as claimed. The claim that they need not be eaten within hours is substantiable, but that they need NOT be eaten within a few days is beyond what the quoted sources in the veg-nutrition article, such as ADA, recognize as safe. There's also the theoretical impossibilty of this 'days' claim: If one IAA is eaten, then another IAA is eaten 5-10 days later, the first IAA is long-depleted in the body -- or else broken-down for its caloric value or excreted, as the typical person evacuates within 5 days -- so, by the time the second IAA is eaten (assuming that no more of the first IAA was eaten on later days, of course), these 2 IAA's weren't even physically present simultaneously to one another, and thus they can't recombine into the associated dispensible AA.

Some of the additions were interesting (e.g. the history of how the myth evolved), but wordy, and I only condensed those parts. But the complex analysis of the table, and the new protein-combining section (in general) went on...and on...and on about this myth.

In the form of "Cite, explain the citation in a few sentences or less, then move along...please, so we don't fall asleep," the ADA's evidence against this myth was already cited & explained, but removed by the wordy poster. This form of 'moving along' within a few sentences is also consistent with the rest of the page, and this is so that any interested parties can read more details (such as raw data) by going to *outside* sources, rather than losing readers in data too excessive for an encyclopedia. ;-) The removed text (which was written by another primary contributor and myself) also conformed to that poster's pattern of presenting why each of these nutrients is necessary and then good food-sources for each, and I've re-corrected things by replacing most of that pattern (and adding to it) for the 'protein' section to match that pattern.

In general, the wordy poster's text also mildly overstated these things, as in the factually-misleading table cited above and the 'days' example. Also removed were some mild POV's:

• "Probably the biggest myth about protein..." To you or me, maybe, but how can one quantify or support what the 'biggest' myth is? Even if you said 'biggest in terms of popular belief, rather than subjective opinion of what is 'big,' you've presented no poll showing that, despite that Wikipedia's admins call for us to support our claims. And even if you could objectively define 'biggest,' why does 'probably' ever belong in an encyclopedia, in this context: If 'the encyclopedia people' aren't even sure of themselves, why am I reading an encyclopedia (or any other publication which purports to belong in the reference-section)??
• "Lappe's idea easily made its way into the collective consciousness of a society which was predisposed to think of plant foods as inferior." I agree, but you again lack support to claim what society 'collective consciousness' was: I'd post supporting research to support this, and especially the disposition of the USDA at the time, the popularity of USDA info such as the Food Pyramid, and the unfortunate fact that the USDA has often had industry-reps rather than nutritionists on its committees which recommend things such as the Food Pyramid; without that support, it comes off as POV, and with it, it goes on a tangent away from nutrition and too much into sociology and the politics of people believing whatever USDA tells them, despite the USDA's conflict of interest.
• "The first good research..." Let the readers decide what's 'good' research; it's 'good' research to you, which is subjective, but you offer no objective qualifiers to prove why any 'bad' research which preceded it wasn't as 'good'.
• "But it is to Lappe's credit that the [sic] recanted about the very idea that made her a household name". Extraneous, and readers can make their own judgments about whether this is creditworthy, as opposed to some who might actually agree with her original position despite our data to the contrary.

If you'd like to repost this table, please explain to the mods, for starters, how cysteine/tyrosine are even IAA's... :-) ...and/or similar reasoning if you'd like to re-post anything else critiqued for the reasons above, because hey, you may prove some of my reasoning wrong and thus improve the page; we'll see.

Jan 8, 2005

Within days after I posted the above, the same person (without the explanations/proof requested above) took out the fact that soy is the only plant with all IAA's present (again) which even pre-dated my own contributions, and re-added most of his erroneous IAA info, POV, and often redundant info (again). To keep some good additions which others made (and thanks to those of you who improved cross-links into the rest of the wikipedia; I was tired to add too many by the time I finished actually *writing* my parts, and I'm sure the other major writer who came before me was too tired for many cross-links too... ;-) ), I manually reverted this protein-combining section rather than reverting the entire page. I think it's far from done though, and primarily needs input from more people, maybe better organization or more info (on anything but protein unless there's another *really* important protein issue ;-) ).

For the protein-combination person: All I'm asking you to do is support your claims about the IAA's since they run contrary to common knowledge, including that your info on IAA's conflicts with what's been accepted into Wikipedia's AA article -- just as you pointed out that McDougall, quite rightly, is asking others to support their claims on another issue.

Oh, and I'm asking you not to make this issue regarding protein-combination 10 times longer than the ENTIRE entry for each of the OTHER nutrients of interest. ;-)

And not to praise Dr. McDougall, my hero as well as yours, so much that even I recognize your praise as POV, and the other POV examples I gave above). ;-)

P.S. For this guy who either can't read this 'discussion' page or ignores my calls for proof & explanations: Please also learn that an ellipse is made up of three (3) periods and that if a comma AND a quotation mark both follow a word, the comma comes before the quotation mark. You'll save me the need to edit those next time, too. ;-) Or better yet, I'll get a mod to review this IAA disinformation and the rest.

The following link (provided by Electric Blue) confirms that vegimite does not claim to contain any B12:

http://vegemite.com.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=VitaminB.welcome --Mig77 07:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Patrick Holford's New Optimum Nutrition Bible, p54, quinoa also contains all 8 amino acids. I also found some labeling on a packet of millet claiming the same, but that's not likely to be reliable :) Greenman 14:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, the claim about Soy is itself a myth. In reality, all plant-derived proteins are complete. (Source: "A basic course in vegetarian and vegan nutrition," by George Eisman, R.D.) You can verify this yourself: check a breakdown of amino acids for common plant foods, and you'll find all the EAAs are there. Hoss Firooznia 14:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Lots of new research is happening in this area. The definition of 'complete' doesn't stand up anymore, but popularly means 'containing all 8 (or sometimes 9) essential amino acids'. I agree that plants (not sure about 'all', but I'll go along with it for now) contain all of these amino acids. However, the levels differ. Most grains have very low levels of lysine and methionine, probably below the ideal (probably only because ideal levels for humans haven't yet been accurately determined). The

PDCAAS rating is a modern attempt to rate the digestibility of proteins for humans, taking into account amino acid levels. However, this does not lend itself to arbitrary divides between 'complete' and 'incomplete'. 1.0 is the highest rating, and foods such as soy and eggs have a rating of 1, beef 0.92, etc. I haven't managed to find a PDCAAS source for quinoa, but there are other plants that also score highly, such as whey. So, I'll remove the reference to soy as the only complete protein, and try and incorporate some of the subtleties into the article. Greenman

09:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for updating that outdated way of describing soy, Greenman. I hadn't added it, but it was something I had heard from many reliable sources, but old old old sources. Surely whey isn't a plant though, maybe you were thinking of wheat? or were you saying whey (dairy) is a vegetarian food (ok for lacto-ovo vegetarians)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.22.160 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2009

A vegetarian forwarded this information to me:

• Most common cause of death in U.S.:
  Heart Disease
• Risk of heart attack for the average American man: 50%
• Risk of death front heart attack for the average American man who consumes no meat, dairy products or eggs: 4%

I can find sources for the first 2 statements. The CDC reports that the most common cause of death in the U.S. (at about 30%) is heart disease [1]. If a vegetarian diet truly does significantly reduce the risk of heart attack -- even by a small amount -- that should be in the main article. I wish I had a reference for it. -- DavidCary

There's some discussion in Vegetarianism about how difficult it is to separate out a variety of lifesytle factors (eg do lower % of veggies smoke compared to population at large?). That should be noted here. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have recently done a major rewrite of the Ethics of eating meat article. I have tried to balance it's POV as well as perform a major reformatting. Since there are few editors on that article I have not gotten any feedback. I was wondering if people here could look at what I have done and comment on it. I have opened a Request for peer review for this article, please post comments there as I will not be watching this talk page. HighInBC 14:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are these two sentences contradictory?

"the hemoglobin in meat yields little iron to the human body upon digestion"

This is trite. -- Mig77^(t) 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Meat is the only source of heme iron; plants contain non-heme iron. The human body absorbs non-heme iron less efficiently"

This is correct -- Mig77^(t) 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

One is in the protein section and the other one is in the iron section Knights who say ni 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While I am aware that a lot of *table* salt *in the US* is iodized. I could not, however, find a source that said this is the case internationally or for salt used in processed foods.

05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I know in South Africa table salt is required to be iodised, however non-iodine varieties are available as iodine supplementation can cause problems with non-food uses of salt, and may be contra-indicated in certain medical conditions (like hyperthyroidism I think). --Mig77^(t) 06:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The section in question stated that salt *added to processed food* was a source of iodine. The questions remain: is salt added by food processors iodized and in all countries? And, technically, we would need a source saying that this makes it easy for vegetarians to get their required iodine.

Mdbrownmsw

17:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The source that has been removed twice says that vegetarians are particularly apt to have an iodine deficiency. This is a verifiable, sourced statement.

The source put up in its place does not mention vegetarians and is interpreted by the editor as saying that iodine deficiencies are common worldwide for vegetarians and meateaters alike. This is Original Research.

Mdbrownmsw

01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The source you site is [[2]] This is an article which references our old favourite ["Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets", Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol 103: pp 748-765]. Which states

Some studies suggest that vegans who do not consume iodized salt may be at risk for iodine deficiency; this appears to be particularly true for those living in iodine-poor areas.

Thus the correct statement should reflect that this has only been documented in VEGANS. I trust Mdbrownsw to edit himself appropriately (or disagree ;). --Mig77^(t) 08:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that, the ADA paper is fairly selective in its interpretation given that it cites: Remer, T.; Neubert, A.1; Manz, F, 1999 "Increased risk of iodine deficiency with vegetarian nutrition" British Journal of Nutrition, Volume 81, Number 1, 1999, pp. 45-49(5) [3] --Mig77^(t) 09:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The source I cited - that of the Council for the Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorders - does not, in effect, say anything specific about vegetarians (or vegans). It does say something about the point that is made in the sentence that Mdbrownsw has repeatedly deleted: that everyone is at risk of iodine deficiency. Out of a global population of six billion, it states that three billion humans are in a state of deficiency.

The very fact that iodized salt is widely available (70% of the world's population "have access" to iodized salt, following the Institute) speaks for itself. Do you seriously think that all that iodized salt is to cater for the specific needs of the vegetarian population? Unfortunately, there are not that many of us!

So what sense is there to go on vegggie-bashing with the theme "some vegetarians do not get enough iodine"? Yes, you can substantiate that as much as you want. You can also substantiate that "some vegetarians fall out of windows" or "some vegetarians loose their jobs". Yes, that happens. But to single out the vegetarians population as having a specific risk of falling out of windows or loosing their jobs, and "supporting" that with some reference that states that it can happen to them, is plainly POV.

The fact is that the main factor that determines iodine deficiency is the iodine content of the soil. The animals eaten by carnivorous people don't invent iodine out of thin air. They don't make it. They get it from the plants they eat. If the soil is poor in iodine, eating animals won't help. The only exception is food coming from the ocean; and iodized salt. Some people eat sea fish. Many people don't, because they don't eat animals generally, or because they don't have access to sea fish, or for any other reason. Here again, singling out vegetarians is absurd. People who don't get iodine from eating fish can get it from iodized salt or from seaweeds. Iodine is a not a specific problem for vegetarians, and the article shouldn't try to make it look as if it was.

David Olivier 09:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your cite does not mention vegetarians. Per WP:OR "That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." You said: "The source I cited...does not, in effect, say anything specific about vegetarians (or vegans)." As such, the cite you are providing is not appropriate for this article.

You state: ""some vegetarians do not get enough iodine"? Yes, you can substantiate that as much as you want." and go on to state that by adding this statement with an appropriate cite that specifically says vegetarians are at risk is POV. You then present an argument which may or may not be true, but is unsourced. Per

Mdbrownmsw

18:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now look, if you interpret as you do the WP:OR clause you cite about the source having to be in a "reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article", you have to take off your own source, an article entitled "Test Your Supplements Savvy", since it clearly is not about vegetarian nutrition.

Actually, your interpretation is absurd. The subject of the paragraph on iodine is iodine deficiency. The fact that iodine deficiency is widespread among the human population in general is relevant to the subject of the article.

Furthermore, that article you cite ("Test Your Supplements Savvy") just simply doesn't substantiate the assertion that you keep putting back in, that "Some vegetarians do not get enough iodine". All it states is "Vegans, who eat no animal products, should pay special attention to protein, iron, zinc, calcium, riboflavin, vitamins D, B-12, and A, and iodine." That vegans should pay attention to a nutrient doesn't imply that some of them don't get enough of it.

The source I cite - which testifies that iodine deficiency is widespread among the human population generally - clearly implies that that sentence of yours is in any case irrelevant. Yes, I too believe some vegetarians do not get enough iodine, and also some have car accidents and some even die sooner or later. So what? Do we have to put that in the article?

David Olivier 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I do NOT interpret it to mean the SOURCE must be about vegetarian nutrition, only that the "facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments ... must already have been published ... in relation to the topic of the article". In other words, the source must say something about vegetarians and iodine. My source says, "vegetarians can have a very low (iodine) intake." The British Journal of Nutrition is a reliable source. The statement (in fact, the whole article) is clearly about vegetarian nutrition. Your argument is as follows: iodine deficiency is common in the world, so when discussing vegetarian nutrition, we should point this out because YOU think it is relevant to vegetarian nutrition. You also make a leap of logic, from a source that says iodine deficiency is common worldwide to "Iodine deficiency is a worldwide problem, in vegetarians and meat-eaters alike." Your source does not say that. Maybe iodine deficiency is common because vegetarianism is common. Maybe not. Who knows? If you want to introduce the argument that iodine deficiency has nothing to do wiht a vegetarian diet, you need to find a reliable source that says that. Failing that, we have a reliable source that connects the two. To avoid any argument of interpretation, my readding of the point will be a direct quote. If you have a problem with the source, say that. If you believe I am quoting out of context, fill in the missing context. If you simply don't like what the source clearly says, I have nothing to offer you.

Mdbrownmsw

15:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Mdbrownmsw. Although I believe the study is deeply flawed (they constructed a deliberatly iodine free diet and found - supprise supprise - that their proxy for iodine was lower - oh and this artificial diet was vegeterian so "vegiterians are at risk"), my criticism of it would be "original research" and so I must contain myself. --Mig77^(t) 16:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the last paragraph about protein, which seemed more the result of a tug of war than of thoughtful editing. I think that the whole paragraph about protein should be reworked somewhat, to make it more balanced (but not with preposterous anti-veg statements such as "animal protein is inherently superior", etc.). There is an ongoing debate about protein. The article should reflect that. I believe, for instance, that what it says about protein combination being a myth is probably true; but the article should present that and also the opposing view. David Olivier 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for what you believe is "probably true". Wikipedia is about verifiability":

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." WP:Verifiability

I removed several unsourced claims and replaced them with sourced statements from reliable sources. You reverted this.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." WP:Verifiability

The sources I gave are medical journals and the ADA. These, I firmly believe are reliable, resonably unbiased sources for this topic. The material you reverted to is largely unsourced. The section on zinc you reverted to is clearly a developing point/counterpoint about the import of zinc in the human diet, which (failing a source specifically discussing it in the context of vegetarianism) is wholly inappropriate to this article:

"the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

WP:OR

Before changing this back again, I will await discussion from you or any other interested party for several days. (To ensure that you see this, I will post a quick note on your talk page.)

Mdbrownmsw

18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a working source in place of the dead link. The new source was the source the dead link cited. Both discuss "iron deficiency anemia", not "iron deficiency". Both noted the quoted issue for vegetarian children.

15:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Added fish and poultry as sources for heme iron along with source.

15:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions on 4 December 2006 per WP:OR the "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia".

20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The cited source says that Western vegetarians and vegans have not been found to suffer from overt

15:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a source for previously unsourced "However, phylate in many whole-grains and fiber in many foods may interfere with zinc absorption". I also added the associated warning that "marginal zinc intake has poorly understood effects."

15:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed a section arguing that proper zinc intake relates to cancer. The various sources cited said nothing about vegetarian nutrition. Per

15:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." WP:Verifiability

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." WP:Verifiability

"the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

Any material in an article MUST come from a reliable source that directly relates that material to the topic (Vegetarian nutrition).

"In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources

(see also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Aspects_of_reliability)

Kellogg's 1918 book is not reliable, as he has a poor reputation and no fact-checking facility or editorial oversight.

20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article stated that vegetarian diets are relatively low in iron. I found no reference of this in the cited sources; in fact, the American Dietetic Association's page says that vegetarians get more iron than non-vegetarians. See [4]

As that source points out, vegetarian diets are often higher in total iron, but the type of iron in vegetarian diets is harder to absorb, and more susceptible to inhibitors of absorption. --Coroebus 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following table because the information wasn't attributed to a

:

Food Group	Limiting Amino Acids	Combine With
Legumes	Tryptophan, Methionine	Grains, nuts/seeds
Nuts/seeds	Lysine, Isoleucine	Legumes
Grains	Lysine, Isoleucine, Threonine	Legumes, dairy

Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted this unsubstantiated claim. The citation refers only to a study which examines the possible benefits of a low protein diet.--Ksteveh 06:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To User:Sideshow Bob Roberts Your reference citation is interesting, but offers no actual research to back its claim. In fact, there is no epidemiological work that would show low protein in a typical vegetarian diet, only lower levels than a meat-eating diet. But the implication from your statement (which I've deleted again) is that a vegetarian LOV diet is low in protein, which it is not. Why don't you have a look at this: American Dietetic Association position on vegetarian diet---- Ksteveh (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ksteveh,

I'm genuinely puzzled by your objection. Are you actually disputing the claim that "vegetarian diets are usually relatively low in protein"? It's true, it's uncontroversial, and there's plenty of reliable data out there to back it up. If you want raw data, the EPIC-Oxford data on mean daily nutrient intakes of various diet groups in the UK are presented in Davey GK, Spencer EA, Appleby PN, Allen NE, Knox KH & Key TJ (2003): "EPIC-Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33,883 meat-eaters and 31,546 non meat-eaters in the UK" in Public Health Nutrition 6, 259–269.

Note that, in this context, "low" does not mean "deficient". The sentence you deleted didn't say vegetarian diets are generally protein-deficient, it said "Vegetarian diets are usually relatively low in protein,[2] which may be beneficial.[9][10]" If you think the wording was ambiguous, it would be more appropriate to rephrase the sentence than to delete a fact that is mentioned in most medical discussions about the health effects of vegetarian diets. How about "Vegetarians generally consume less protein than meat-eaters, and this may be beneficial"?

By the way, I have no idea why you're asking me to look at the ADA paper. Nowhere does it suggest that vegetarian diets are not low in protein. In fact, if you take five or ten minutes to read the sources cited in the references section of that paper, you'll find tons of evidence that vegetarians consume less protein. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the claim that "vegetarian diets are usually relatively low in protein", which is directly attributable to a reliable, published source (a peer-reviewed article about the health effects of vegetarianism, published in a respected journal about nutrition). If anyone thinks this reference is inadequate, please state your case here. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the following paragraph was deleted:

Due to the lower digestibility of plant proteins, however, the

RDA

in vegetarians whose dietary protein sources are mainly those that are less well digested, such as some cereals and legumes."

The edit summary [5] said "misleading - additionally cereals and legumes are included in vegetarian diets". What does this mean? How is a direct quote from the American Dietetic Association misleading? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The scientific studies cited specifically state that lifestyle (avoidance of smoking/alchoal, moderate exercise and higher socio economic status) is the primary cause of longivity. One study even go as far as to state that "a low-meat, high plant-food dietary pattern may be the true causal protective factor rather than simply elimination of meat from the diet.". It is dishonest to spin that that into "vegetarianism is healthy". Vapour (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is that of whether the lifestyle differences are taken into account in the studies on the health effects of vegetarian diets. The other issue is the relevance of mentioning whether or not vegetarian diets are the absolute best-of-all diets.

Concerning the first issue: any serious medical study will try to factor out non-target variables. If that was not done for the studies cited, then they are not reliable studies. But that is difficult to determine, since the links to the references don't work. I rather suspect that those referenced articles are attempts to re-analyse the results of original studies, both the original studies and the re-analyses claiming to take the lifestyle differences into account; and thus that your assertion that the original studies didn't take lifestyle differences into account, while the re-analyses did, is contentious. Unless this is cleared up, I think that assertion should be left out.

Concerning the second issue: no, I don't think that a comparison between the average vegetarian diet and some hypothetical best-of-all diet is at all relevant. What is relevant is that vegetarianism appears to be a healthy diet. Furthermore, it is rather well known that vegetarian diets tend to have a number of deficiencies that could easily be avoided, such as low vitamin B12 intake or low iodine. If you want to make comparisons with the best possible hypothetical carnivorous diet, the vegetarian diet you compare with should be the best possible one too. That apparently is not what you propose.

The fact is that vegetarians are at a disadvantage because we live in a carnivorous world; which means that the doctors we see are not trained to our specific needs, and public health programs ignore us. In a world where killing animals to eat their flesh will have been abolished, the health of vegetarians will necessarily be better than it is today. That is another factor that should not be ignored, if you yourself really want to be avoid appearing to be doing “dishonest spinning”.

David Olivier (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Vapour, please

assume good faith

and don't accuse other editors of dishonesty. Frankly, I can't understand what you're concerned about: the article clearly stated that vegetarians are generally healthier than meat-eaters but that "this may be due to non-dietary lifestyle factors, such as a low prevalence of smoking and the generally high socio-economic status of vegetarians, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish". To me that seems like a perfectly honest summary of the evidence, but I've changed it to "this is at least partly due to non-dietary lifestyle factors..." just to be sure.

I don't think it's fair to say, as you do, that the mortality differences between the groups are "entirely due to non-dietary lifestyle factors, such as a low prevalence of smoking and the generally high socio-economic status of vegetarians, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish". The studies you cite don't say this. For example, Appleby et al (1999) state that "After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and social class, death rates were lower in non-meat-eaters than in meat eaters for each of the mortality endpoints studied". Lifestyle is clearly in important factor, but it's stretching the evidence to say that it's the only factor. At this point, all we really know for sure is that vegetarians tend to live longer, healthier lives and this is at least partly explained by lifestyle factors, but the evidence strongly suggests that not eating meat also has something to do with it.

Some of your other claims lead me to believe you haven't actually read (or understood) the sources you're citing. For example, you removed the claim that vegetarian diets are usually rich in omega-6 fatty acids, claiming in your edit summary that "omega-6 fatty acids is not mentioned in the referenced source".[6] The sentence in question cited two sources, both of which clearly state that vegetarian diets are usually rich in omega-6 (or n-6) fatty acids.

On top of this, you've separated the inline citations from the claims they relate to, making it very difficult for readers to verify your claims. Because you've lumped all the sources together at the end of the paragraph, I can't tell which source you're referring to when you say "the study also indicate that excessive intake of meat is, indeed, detrimental to longevity". I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to move all the references to the end of the paragraph like that.

I've reverted most of your changes because, with all due respect, I think they make the issue more, rather than less, confusing to the reader.[7] I think your point about fish-eaters living longer than vegetarians is an important one and I'd like to see it restored, but (1) it needs to be attributable to a reliable, published source and (2) we need to work on the wording (I haven't seen any studies about people who "primarily eat fish"). Can I respectfully suggest that, before moving away from a stable version of the article that has consensus, you propose your changes here on the discussion page so that we can agree on the wording and iron out any problems with spelling, grammar, referencing etc.?

David, just to clarify: the studies in question were very high quality prospective studies that did, indeed, control for lifestyle factors. I've removed the broken links. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Vapour, I don't understand your continued attempt to change the article into one about the benefits of some hypothetical optimal diet. That's not the subject. The subject is vegetarian nutrition. The term of comparison is non-vegetarian nutrition.

You argue in your edit summary that “it is hard to argue with scientific paper, isn't it”. Now if a scientific paper states that vegetarians (as a group) fare better than regular meat eaters (as a group), what that brings to our subject is that vegetarians fare better than non-vegetarians. Almost all British non-vegetarians are regular meat-eaters. To try to pick out insignificant subgroups of non-vegetarians by looking into the loopholes of the wording of the studies in order to use those subgroups as a means to water-down the simple fact that, generally, vegetarians fare better than non-vegetarians is very artificial.

David Olivier (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, Vapour, your claims are not supported by the studies you cite. For example, you claim that

British vegetarians have lower death rates than regular meat eater but has higher mortality rate than people who eat fish but no other meat.[3][4]

The two studies you cite here are Appleby et al (1999): “The Oxford Vegetarian Study: an overview” and Key et al (2003): “Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford”. However, neither of these studies reports higher mortality rates among vegetarians than among fish-eaters.

In the Key et al study, "participants were categorized as either nonvegetarians (ie, meat eaters and fish eaters) or vegetarians (lactoovovegetarians and vegans)" so they don't draw any conclusions about the relative mortality rates of vegetarians and fish-eaters. They do find, however, that vegetarians have lower mortality rates than nonvegetarians, and vegetarians have lower mortality rates from ischemic heart disease than "semi-vegetarians" ("defined as eating meat less than once a week, eating fish, or both"). Interestingly enough, they also find that both fish and "less than daily" consumption of meat are associated with higher death rates from ischemic heart disease. This would seem to directly contradict your claims.

In the Appleby et al study, "Subjects were divided into meat eaters (who ate meat at least once a week) and non-meat-eaters (all others). Most of the non-meat-eaters were vegetarian or vegan, although 23% of the non-meat-eaters ate meat occasionally but less than once a week, or ate fish, or both." Since this study doesn't distinguish between vegetarians and fish-eaters, the authors don't claim that vegetarians have higher mortality rates than fish-eaters.

As I said earlier, I have no objection to your claim that vegetarians have higher mortality rates than fish-eaters, provided you cite a reliable, published source that explicitly states this. Unfortunately, neither of the studies you cited supports your claim. Again, you appear to be making claims about scientific studies without having read or understood those studies. When you go around accusing other editors of dishonestly spinning the evidence, you should be particularly careful not to misrepresent your own evidence.

Despite being asked to discuss your edits here on the talk page and to try to reach a consensus before moving forward, you've completely ignored our concerns and restored your dubious edits without any discussion. Please make an effort to collaborate with the rest of us. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there some reason to remove the referenced section about reduced risk of choking on food? The section is called benefits, not nutritional benefits, and reduced risk of choking is certainly a benefit. Bob98133 (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting claim, but the citation is not a

reliable, published source. For all I know, they just made that claim up. If you want to claim that vegetarians are less likely to choke than meat-eaters, just point to some reliable research on the topic. Cheers, Polemarchus (talk

) 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Original ref was a bit flaky, however info was correct. I have re-added ph with two reliable refs. Bob98133 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Protein is one of the nutrients listed as low in poorly planned vegetarian diets. The second source cited, "Health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets", states:

In terms of nutrients, vegetarian diets are usually rich in carbohydrates, n-6 fatty acids, dietary fibre, carotenoids, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E and Mg, and relatively low in protein, saturated fat, long-chain n-3 fatty acids, retinol, vitamin B(12) and Zn

In fact, it doesn't even state "poorly planned vegetarian diets", it just says "vegetarian diets".

I think possibly the misunderstanding here stems from "relatively low" being considered "deficient". A typical western diet contains way more protein than is nutritionally useful, so being "relatively low" in protein is just fine, in this case. The other source cited, "Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets", states:

Although some vegan women have protein intakes that are marginal, typical protein intakes of lacto-ovo-vegetarians and of vegans appear to meet and exceed requirements.

Perhaps that should be made clearer in the text. -kotra (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the first citation that lists the nutrients that are low in a poorly planned vegetarian diet. Protein is not one of those nutirents. Michael H 34 (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

I redid the change that states "Nonetheless, Vegetarians believe that well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets can meet all these nutrient requirements and are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence" it's a belief because it can't be proven and I would hazard to guess that the majority of specialists in nutrition would disagree that Vegan diets meet all dietary requirements. Cite me mainstream research that says otherwise and I'll stop fixing the article. edit: sorry, forgot to sign. Paganize (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Then put a ^{[citation needed]} tag in there, don't reword it with weasel words, hazarded guesses and misplaced capitals. Greenman (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making a guess, or even inserting a fact tag as Greenman suggests, you could just look at reference number 3 from the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. What more proof do you want? Or what equally good references can you supply that contradict this? Bob98133 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

it is obviously vegetarian propaganda. and the misspellings, etc, were in the quoted text; check the history. and, following the link, reading the report, one thing stood out: "Because of the variability of dietary practices among vegetarians, individual assessment of dietary intakes of vegetarians is required". This Wikipedia article is heavily biased.Paganize (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nonetheless, well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets can meet all these nutrient requirements and are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence."

This seems to me to indicate that a vegan, with proper planning, can get all these nutrients without vitamins. But there's very little evidence to say that it's possible to get vitamin b12 without supplementation.

If it is meant to say that a vegan can get these nutrients (with fortified foods or vitamins) then it doesn't need to be all that "well-planned". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.14.92.12 (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Evidence suggests that vegetarians are generally healthier and live longer than non-vegetarians."

Is also quite misleading. It might be accurate to say that the average vegetarian is healthier than the average non-vegetarian, but this should not imply that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a non-vegetarian diet. This is an apple and orange comparison. This statement compares a group of people who have collectively made attempts to change their diet and put at least minimal effort into their food choices to everyone else, most of which put little or no effort into their food choices. A comparison that would be more fair would be 'flexitarians' and vegetarians and vegans. Flexitarians, (

) A group of people who care what goes into their bodies who limit their meat intake but don't remove it entirely from their diet. The second big flaw in this comparison is that it's comparing vegetarians (not vegans) to omnivores. Some people might assume that this comparison would also apply to Vegans vs Omnivores but that's really not the case. And the third big flaw with this statement is the very qualitative term 'healthier'. What does healthier mean? Most studies that compare eating habits between vegetarians and omnivores tend to focus on one thing: mortality due to heart disease. It can be debated that 'health' goes beyond just that.

As such that statement is far too ambiguous to be informative. If this was a quotation with a source it would be fine, but it appears to be mostly a conclusion drawn by the author with no citations. The first section 'Benefits of a vegetarian diet' provides much more information that this conclusion seems to be based on and that alone should be sufficient. It's not up to wiki editors to make conclusions that aren't backed up by sources. The statement should either be removed or backed up with a citation. 68.179.102.105 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the statement and reorganized the lead a bit. I don't agree that a comparison with flexitarians would be more informative, but "healthier" is rather vague, and I haven't seen a reliable source stating that vegetarians live longer than nonvegetarians. Klubbit (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

From the article on veganism:

Tempeh, seaweed, spirulina, organic produce, soil on unwashed vegetables, and intestinal bacteria have not been shown to be reliable sources of B12 for the dietary needs of vegans.[110[121][122]]

I am removing the sentence on nori. --N-k (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits in B12 section are sourced only from the personal pages of some MD promoting their own vegan diet, without reliable sources. Similar edits were made in other related articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vegetarianism#Physiology --Mihaiam (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Statements like, "Edits in B12 section are sourced only from the personal pages of some MD promoting their own vegan diet" are flagrantly inaccurate. Please check my edits honestly before getting swayed by the lies of this user.

Mihaiam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) —this user has been stalking me and reverting all my comparatively larger edits without providing enough reason. One example, just because one of my sentences contained one slightest (but I'm not too sure if it was incorrect at all) scientific inaccuracy he rashly reverted the whole edit when he could have enriched the article by simply correcting the inaccuracy with good sources.

I sincerely think he is starting multiple edit wars at once. He thinks just because I don't have many administrator friends he could revert my changes. His primary claim is that none of my sources are reliable but his/her sources are. Just look at his contributions. His contributions are mostly deletions of the edits he doesn't like. Also his activity is mysteriously sporadic. He might as well be a sock (he also claims that whoever supports my position is my sockpuppet).

I'm really discouraged by this sort of behaviour. Please someone help me. :) --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"A longitudinal study originally intended to study the effects of green tea extract on risk of CVD and cancer discovered that over a 10 week period, ceasing fruit and vegetable consumption lead to "a decrease in oxidative damage to DNA, blood proteins, and plasma lipids, concomitantly with marked changes in antioxidative defence.""

But a close reading of the cited article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=12064344&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) reveals that this change only took place because subjects were given meat infused with green tea extract. This study does not imply that eating meat reduces oxidative damage, and this paragraph should be removed.

Link contested as spam by TheRedPenOfDoom: v-nut.e-motiv.net
User:TheRedPenOfDoom, please state why you think my addition is spam. There will not be any better information for people who want to know about specific vegetarian nutrition in food than the link I provided. This is a link that a lot of people reaching this article will approve of. It's also not a commercial site. In fact, it's doing just what wikipedia does, provide free information. Please, explain your actions. (Same goes for Vegan Nutrition).
R U Bn (Talk • contrib) 21:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

How does it meet the criteria at

WP:EL? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

21:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The site in question is indirectly related to Vegetarian nutrition, failing

talk

) 03:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Longitudinal Studies

The longitudinal studies cited are not with specifically vegetarian (totally meatless) populations, but they may shed some light on issues associated with vegetarian diets. I think that, to not point that out, is not compliant with the project's standards, since it suggests that they do reflect directly (rather than indirectly) upon the topic of the article, specifically vegetarian nutrition. MaynardClark (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)

Strucinska, M. (2002). "[Vegetarian diets of breastfeeding women in the light of dietary recommendations]." Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig 53(1): 65-79.

The literature review concerning selected nutritional and health aspects of applying different vegetarian diets by breastfeeding women was presented. The only two types of vegetarian diets: lacto-ovo- and semi-vegetarian, when properly composed, seem to be relatively safe for mother and her child. The most threatening vegetarian diets for lactating women are those including exclusively products of plant origin (so called restricted diets: vegan or macrobiotic). The results of studies performed on mothers consuming these vegetarian diets showed deficiencies in: vitamin B12 and vitamin D (in mothers and their infants) and calcium (only in lactating women). The low intake of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) was also characteristic in this group. Additionally the endogenous metabolism of DHA is inhibited due to high proportion of linoleic vs. linolenic acid intake. It considered that lactating women on vegetarian diet should have a greater nutritional knowledge in order to avoid deficiencies which would adversely affect mother's and her child's health.

Davis, B. C. and P. M. Kris-Etherton (2003). "Achieving optimal essential fatty acid status in vegetarians: current knowledge and practical implications." Am J Clin Nutr 78(3 Suppl): 640S-646S.

Although vegetarian diets are generally lower in total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol than are nonvegetarian diets, they provide comparable levels of essential fatty acids. Vegetarian, especially vegan, diets are relatively low in alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) compared with linoleic acid (LA) and provide little, if any, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Clinical studies suggest that tissue levels of long-chain n-3 fatty acids are depressed in vegetarians, particularly in vegans. n-3 Fatty acids have numerous physiologic benefits, including potent cardioprotective effects. These effects have been demonstrated for ALA as well as EPA and DHA, although the response is generally less for ALA than for EPA and DHA. Conversion of ALA by the body to the more active longer-chain metabolites is inefficient: < 5-10% for EPA and 2-5% for DHA. Thus, total n-3 requirements may be higher for vegetarians than for nonvegetarians, as vegetarians must rely on conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA. Because of the beneficial effects of n-3 fatty acids, it is recommended that vegetarians make dietary changes to optimize n-3 fatty acid status. MaynardClark (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

DHA supplements derived from DHA-rich microalgae are available,[1] but the human body can only inefficiently convert DHA to EPA

This sentence and the source from 2003 are either wrong or severly outdated. All current microalgae supplements contain both EPA and DHA. The source does also not state that reconversion of DHA to EPA is low but that is moot.

Additionally, a vegan or vegetarian diet does not run a higher risk of low ALA/high LA than an omnivore diet as the main source of LA is plant oils commonly used in cooking and frying (mainly sunflower and corn oil), common types of margarine and to a lesser degree animal fat and some nuts. On the other hand, olive oil, common part of vegan diet, and canola are low in LA, canola high in ALA too. --Echosmoke (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The first source, Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, quoted throughout the article, is from 2003 and severly outdated. We should consider removing it entirely. --Echosmoke (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)