Exposing the Statement on Vegan Diets | Beyond the Propaganda

Exposing the Statement on Vegan Diets | Beyond the Propaganda


What I put in my body matters now more than ever. As a parent, I’m always reminded of that, and to go beyond in everything that I do. In December of 2016, the Academy of Nutrition
and Dietetics published a review of the evidence for the safety and benefits of vegan and vegetarian
diets. They conclude that “appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets
are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention
and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life
cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and
for athletes.” This statement has been a focal point for many who advocate for a plant
based diet. While at first glance the paper appears to present a good argument for vegetarian
and vegan diets, when digging deeper into the claims the study makes it is clear that
the authors did a poor job of drawing conclusions based on the current research. Before carefully reading everything through,
I briefly skimmed the article to see what points they would be making, and was stunned
to find an entire section dedicated to discussing why these diets are better for the environment.
Why would they include something like that in a paper that’s supposed to be looking
at the nutritional aspects of plant based eating? I thought the authors might’ve had
a reason to do this, perhaps they were already advocates for this way of eating before writing
the paper? I checked the potential conflicts of interest, to which the authors reported
there was none. Then I looked up the authors and it started to make sense. Vesanto Melina became an ethical vegan after
learning about the animal cruelty of factory farming. Since then, she has published twelve
different books about vegan and vegetarian diets, and was sponsored by Dieticians of
Canada to speak to different groups of dieticians about plant based eating. On her YouTube channel,
which has less subscribers than our own, you can find her speaking about how to help save
the environment by not eating animal foods. Surely, she was unbiased in her review of
the scientific literature when she wrote this paper. Winston Craig is a seventh day adventist,
a religion which requires those who follow it to abstain from eating animals. He also
taught chemistry at three seventh day adventist schools. Of course, he has authored multiple
vegetarian focused books as well, which certainly benefited from the public statement that he
issued. The final author, Susan Levin, began a vegan
diet nearly 18 years ago. Why did she start? I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t because
she thoroughly researched the nutritional adequacy of the diet.
Susan also was paid to promote a fake meat brand which thankfully no longer exists. So let’s keep in mind the agenda in place
here when considering this so called research. You are fake news. Let me begin by saying that I believe it is
totally possible to be nutritionally complete with a vegetarian diet, especially a peskitarian
diet that includes fish. My stance on veganism is different, I think that it is pretty clear
that without supplementation a vegan diet can be problematic. Even with supplementation,
there are still clear risks, as there may be differences from nutrients found in food
and the form found in supplements. The paper is largely about potential nutrients
of concern on these diets and why those who decide to do them shouldn’t worry. The first
they discuss is protein. In the reference study they list, they specifically state that
vegetarians do not get as much protein as non vegetarians. They don’t even discuss
vegan diets throughout the entire 1300 page PDF. This study found that vegans get even
less protein than vegetarians, and they also have a lower caloric intake. This is important
to consider because the authors made it clear that it is possible to get enough protein
so long as energy requirements are met. In actuality, it is much harder to obtain protein
from plant sources because of the volume of food needed to meet protein needs. The authors then state that including a variety
of different plant based proteins will supply all of the essential amino acids necessary,
and that the regular use of soy and legumes will help meet these needs. While this is
true, this is only one piece of the puzzle People eat them apparently. Oh really? While this is true, this is only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to protein quality. We must
also consider compounds such as protease inhibitors which reduces the bioavailability of the protein.
In the previously mentioned citation, protein quality was determined using the Protein Digestibility
Corrected Amino Acid Score, which does not take into account these factors. However,
it wasn’t their fault, that paper came out in 2005. The FAO didn’t recommend using
the new protein quality score, the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score, or DIAAS,
which does take into account bioavailability, until 2013. It just begs the question, why
cite a paper written before the new score was introduced when the new information was
available when this review was written? Probably because it would expose their frail argument. When we look at the DIAAS ratings for different
foods, it becomes clear that animal foods are superior when it comes to protein Next they discuss the omega 3 fatty acids
EPA and DHA. These are completely absent from a vegan diet without supplementation. They
do admit that vegetarians do have significantly lower blood levels of these fatty acids, but
claim that the evidence is unclear whether this has any negative health implications
in vegetarians and vegans. Notice the wording here, claiming that there is no evidence in
the plant based population. This is important because studies have pretty consistently found
that lower levels of blood omega 3 fatty acids are risks for certain cardiovascular conditions,
and that higher levels are protective. However, since these studies were not done specifically
in the vegetarian or vegan population, they can state that the evidence is inconclusive. They then go on to state that “vegetarian
and vegan children do not appear to experience impairment in visual or mental development,”
a dubious claim to say the least. Their evidence for this claim comes from two studies, neither
of which even mention vegetarian or vegan children. However one does mention an important
point, that the levels of DHA in breast milk is significantly lower in vegetarians and
vegans. One trial showed that children fed a formula devoid of DHA had poorer visual
and cognitive development compared to children fed formula with DHA and children who were
breastfed, the mothers being omnivores. This is very important to note because the authors
specifically stated that vegan diets were safe for pregnant and lactating mothers. It’s
also pretty much universally accepted that DHA is important for neurological development,
and the research suggests that DHA deficiency as a child can worsen cognitive development.
However since there have been no studies specifically on vegan or vegetarian children, and I know
this because not even the authors could cite one, they can state this and appear to make
a good point. In fact, we should be more concerned about vegan children’s cognition, since
not only will they lack essential fatty acids, but other nutrients like vitamin B12 and zinc. Next they tackle Iron. Iron can be a problem
on a plant based diet because of the low bioavailability of free iron vs the highly absorbable heme
iron, the latter found only in animal foods. They do admit that vegetarians and vegans
tend to have lower serum ferritin levels, a blood marker for Iron status, yet try to
spin this as some kind of advantage, claiming “Lower serum ferritin levels may be an advantage
because elevated serum ferritin levels have independently been associated with the risk
of developing metabolic syndrome.” While this is true, you’re argument is utterly ridiculous. High serum ferritin is bad, but they casually gloss over the issues
with iron deficiency without anemia, such as joint pain, fatigue and even migraines.
Iron deficiency is significantly more common in those excluding meat from the diet. They then go on to downplay the importance
of heme iron in the diet because of an adaptation in vegans and vegetarians that increases non
heme iron absorption. The study they listed did show a 40% increase in iron absorption
in the group eating a low heme iron diet over 10 weeks. What they conveniently didn’t
mention was that this was still four times lower than the amount of iron absorbed by
those in the high heme iron group. This is probably one of the reasons those on a plant
based diet consistently have been shown to have lower levels of serum ferritin than those
who include meat. They also ignore studies like this that show
heme iron being necessary to replenish low iron stores, or ones like this which show
that non heme iron absorption is more than 3 times worse on a vegetarian diet. One more point about iron is that vitamin
B2, riboflavin, is necessary in our body’s absorption and utilization of it. It has been
shown that riboflavin deficiency decreases absorption of iron in the intestine. Once
absorbed, riboflavin is also necessary to properly use iron, since it converts iron
into a form that is physiologically useful for humans. They didn’t even mention riboflavin
in this review, but it is relevant for vegans, approximately 30% of which are riboflavin
deficient compared to 10% of vegetarians and omnivores. They go through several other nutrients such
as calcium, vitamin D and B12, and essentially admit that these will be lacking on a plant
based diet and recommend supplements. Well, there was one study showing how vegans can
avoid B12 deficiency without supplementing: Callender studied vegan volunteers who had vitamin B12 deficiency disease characterized by megaloblastic anemia She collected 24 hour stools, made water extracts of them, and fed the extract to the patients. Thereby curing their vitamin B12 deficiency. Okay. So they’re eating s***. Now while I’m not entirely against supplements,
there are several issues with relying on them for such a large amount of essential nutrients.
The first being the form of the vitamin you get. Are you getting B12 in the form of cyanocobalamin,
which is the synthetic, less absorbable form of the vitamin, or are you getting the much
more bioavailable methylcobalamin? Are you getting B9 as the inferior folic acid, which
inhibits the body’s ability to bind true vitamin B9, methyl folate? There are also
synergies between nutrients, such as that between vitamin A, D and K to form bone tissue.
Then there’s nutrients that have opposite effects, where a balance of them is necessary,
such as magnesium and calcium. Unless you are well versed in the research on essential
nutrients and the different forms found in supplements, supplementing properly can be
very difficult to navigate. There also may be nutrients that we are yet
to discover, or compounds we haven’t yet classified as essential. I mean, we didn’t
even know that choline was essential until the late 90s, when hospitalized children were
getting fatty liver disease because they weren’t fed choline. My point is, supplements can certainly be
helpful, but the complexity of nutrients is yet to be fully understood which is why getting
everything you need from food is always your best bet. It is very unlikely that we can
simply look at what nutrients we don’t get in our diet, swallow some pills and assume
that that is optimal. At the end of the day, how can we really say a diet that requires
5, 10 or even more nutrients to come in the form of supplements is good for everyone? The review also neglects several other nutrients
that will be lacking on plant based diets. Take vitamin A for example. While the precursor
form of vitamin A, beta carotene, is abundant in plant food, it must be converted to active
vitamin A, retinol. This conversion depends on what food the beta carotene is in, what
you eat with that food, genetics, amongst other things. Retinol is only found in animal
foods, so you’re basically gambling on being a good converter by excluding them from the
diet. Another nutrient missing from the paper is
vitamin K2, which again, is absent from plant foods, besides some fermented foods like sauerkraut
and natto. These foods are absolutely essential to get in on a vegan diet, or else there will
be no K2 in the diet at all. However, the type of K2 found in fermented plant foods,
MK7, is only one form of the vitamin. MK4 is the form most abundantly used in the body,
and is only in animal foods like dairy products, animal fat and egg yolks. We can convert k1,
the vitamin K in non fermented plant foods, into MK4, but the conversion again appears
to be pretty inefficient. This 2017 systematic review compared supplementation trials of
vitamin k1 and k2, and found that k1 supplementation did not produce the effects of k2, such as
increasing bone density and preventing cardiovascular calcification. There are also several nutrients exclusive
to animal foods that are considered conditionally essential. That means our bodies can produce
them, but often only in amounts necessary for survival, not for optimal health. These
include carnitine, carnosine, creatine, taurine, and cholesterol. All of these have been shown
to have positive health benefits and it is possible to become deficient in all of them,
something that vegans will be more at risk for since they are absent from a vegan diet. Overall, I find the paper to be incredibly
disingenuous and biased. There was a clear agenda in place, evidenced by the fact that
all of the authors are ethical vegans, and the exclusion of multiple pieces of evidence
to go against their arguments. The agenda isn’t only being perpetrated
by the authors of this paper, but the entire Academy of Nutrition and dietetics is an all
powerful cabal of corporate corruption. The Academy has been trading favors for cash with
various pharmaceutical and food companies for decades. In our next video, we’re going
to take a deep dive into the truth about the lobbying and shady business practices of these
conglomerates. Suggesting a vegan diet is suitable for all
ages and populations is dangerous, and that is mainly because most people that do a vegan
diet are not well educated on how to supplement properly. Most vegans are not people who actually
research what the diet lacks and the dangers of poorly constructing one, since veganism
has always been more of a social and ethical movement than a diet meant to nourish a human
being. Unfortunately, this has led to tragedies of infant death because of a diet they didn’t
even agree to. Even if you do understand how to supplement properly, are you really going
to risk your child’s development because of an ethical belief? Do your own research, don’t appeal to the
so called experts who are only out for their own financial gain. Please give us a like if you enjoyed the video.
Don’t let them fool you, subscribe to our channel

One thought on “Exposing the Statement on Vegan Diets | Beyond the Propaganda

  1. Meat industry is really trying!

    Oh, environment is important but people need to make money of animal agriculture!?

    I wonder why they include such bogus. Lol!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *