Anyone got all the links that show the deficiencies in vegans?

Please explain how you came to that conclusion. Include any scientific sources or evidence that supports your conclusion.

>various amino acid deficiencies
>iodine deficiencies
>calcium deficiencies
>etc

These two things are enough to let anyone reasonably knowledgeable draw the following conclusion from these studies:

the average person is too dumb to into veganism/healthy eating in general

You can live perfectly normal on a vegan diet but you absolutely need to track not only macronutrients, but micronutrients too. No fucking vegan that knows their shit is going to be deficient in anything.

>amino acids

Vegans that are deficient in protein/certain amino acids have little to no knowledge of nutrition and probably can't handle being vegan. Chia seeds + lentils + nuts + various beans/seeds = a full amino acid profile and a lot of it.

I guarantee you half of the vegan diets these people are on are completely retarded low protein low nutrient "high-fruit juice" 'diets'.

Anyone with a b12 deficiency either isn't eating anything fortified or isn't supplementing it. Which is well known to be almost a necessity as very few vegan foods have vitamin b12.

There's another copypasta that has refutations or statements on all of these points, wish I'd saved it.

I would bet my life, my literal life, that a randomly chosen meat eater is deficient in several vitamins and minerals. Asking for these studies is retarded because you try to justify yourself when you are likely not getting enough vitamin E, K, A, and potassium to name a few. No matter how you try to cut it there is a population correlation between high intake of animal products and diseases/cancers

I'm going to start off with the fact that you haven't included a single source of anything supporting your opinions at all, nice job. Vegans in charge of being unscientific as usual.

>You can live perfectly normal on a vegan diet but you absolutely need to track not only macronutrients, but micronutrients too. No fucking vegan that knows their shit is going to be deficient in anything.
Then why were the subjects in all of these studies deficient? How do you know that they did not try to supplement micronutrients in their diets?

>Vegans that are deficient in protein/certain amino acids have little to no knowledge of nutrition
How do you know this? Have you surveyed ever vegan in the world or are you just making assumptions to fit your opinion?

>I guarantee you half of the vegan diets these people are on are completely retarded low protein low nutrient "high-fruit juice" 'diets'.
How do you know this and how can you guarantee that you know this, unless you are just making assumptions again. Did any of the trials and sources state this?

>Anyone with a b12 deficiency either isn't eating anything fortified or isn't supplementing it. Which is well known to be almost a necessity as very few vegan foods have vitamin b12.
If the vegan diet is superior to every other diet, then why are you required to use supplements?

Doesn't exist.

Veganism is better than the standard American diet. That is not saying much, almost anything is better than the standard American diet. You're basically saying that health conscious people are more healthy than non health conscious people, which is true.

Don't you think that eating animal products is just one part of the equation and that obesity is the factor that drives the risk of disease?

I'm not a vegan but here's my take on your articles (on mobile so format is a shit)

That Jama article isn't about veganism. They mention in passing that it has been observed that vegans can be deficient in b12 and the second one concluded that a vegan diet is deficient in b12, not that vegans are deficient. The distnction is significant.

Results about high fiber diet on vitamin D are interesting but an individual study is hardly conclusive of anything. I'm on mobile so I can't access the article so they may have an impressive sample size which would make it more convincing.

Article on weaker bones isn't about vegans but rather raw food vegetarian diet, very different bioavailability from cooked and raw foods. Also they mention no impairment on vitamin D

First line says vegan diets can be healthy if they are balanced. Conclusion was that insufficient calcium intake leads to bone density problems, not specifically a vegan diet.

First article on memory (abstract) says that vegetarians had a better increase in memory than non vegetarians. They didn't say that their memory was worse but rather the improvements were greater than in non vegetarians.

Second article in memory (abstract) also indicates an improvement with creatine supplements in vegans but doesn't compare it to non vegans. This doesn't mean that they had worse memory than non vegans.

Article on making gains is in elderly men, which isn't necessarily bad but it does raise questions as to it's application to healthy young individuals. They also didn't control quantities of food, which is a big factor. I don't know how much we can conclude from this if we don't know how much they were eating.

Because I'm not a vegan nor do I care to defend veganism.

You absolutely can get every nutrient you need from plant based sources and supplements.

I don't know man. The amount of benefits on going vegan/vegeterian outweights all of the information outhere thats against it. Its seriously giving me anxiety because I can't digest meat that good
so i went vegan for a good 3 months and I felt amazing. Tried going back to eating meat and everything came back. I just want to digest my food properly :( this vegan vs non vegan discussions just get me worry.

>Still no studies cited for your claims

epic dude, epic

I'm not a vegan myself but these anti-vegan posts are getting out of hand.

>throw blocks of sources showing that some vegans who likely know nothing about nutrition are deficient in basic nutrients and thinking it proves that vegan diets are inferior

This is ultimately a dishonest tactic. The problem lies with the application of the vegan diet and not the vegan diet itself. It's for the same reason that studies showing meat eaters are usually more obese/overweight than vegans doesn't mean eating meat makes you fat.

Applied properly a vegan diet will give you all the nutrients and essential amino acids. Applied properly a meat eating diet won't make you obese.

so much blame to veganism... but 99% of Hospital patients and the People tha go to the doctor cause of defficiency in something are carnivores...

Can you really believe all the studies are made with Money from the meat. and pharma industry...

Big international Groups, concerns, corporations are making Money from People believing this studies... I dont know... im not a vegan.
I say, dont believe in studies, try it your self and expirience.

>no studies or scientific evidence to support an inherently scientific claim

you are a genetic dead end please end your life

What nutrient do you think a person can't get from vegan sources? Answer that, and I'll provide you a vegan food that contains a suitable amount of that nutrient. To knock some easy ones out of the way that you've already said:

>B12

Fortified foods, supplements

>[essential amino acid]

Chia seeds are a complete protein as are many other plant based foods

>Calcium

Kale, broccoli, soy milk.

I'm a registered dietitian, most concerns with vegans is they don't know wtf they're doing. It's possible to be healthy on a vegan diet, but you need to watch a very wide range of foods. At least a couple times a year I have to tell someone they need to be supplementing with b12 or eating a fortified food. Amazing that they just jump into a way of life without doing theverything first bit of research. Ovolacto vegetarians have no excuse.

Some of the list is legit, some not. Most of the BS stems from vegans not knowing anything. Some of the list includes non essential amino acids.

The part about the kids is sad, but true. Developing fetus and kids have different nutritional requirements, again something parents should know about and compensate for.

nutrition is science; calories in vs calories out is science. He is saying that both sides of this argument are valid.

What are you talking about? Do you want to get into a fight? Go out to a bar and fight someone, otherwise stop being so petty.

All you have to do its search for the doctors that highly recommend a plant base diet, they'll give you all the sources, evidence anything that you could ever want to prove my points. Seriously tho, please go do a little research. Im not 14, I'm not killing myself friend. lol

>write a post explaining exactly why your sources are invalid as an argument against veganism as a whole
>uhh... where's your evidence!!!??!??

The burden of proof is on you. You haven't proved it's impossible to get a balanced diet from only plant sources. A study showing most vegans are deficient in x despite there being a suitable vegan source for it only shows that their diet wasn't properly balanced.

I should probably check my auto corrections..

Eat*, the very*

underrated

refer to this.

Honestly, the first problem you have is that you are too closed minded to be in an argument and anyone that argues with you ends up losing right along with you because you are not willing to listen and be educated.

Citing sources is irrelevant unless you are making a claim that can not be corroborated by public knowledge; the claims being made in this thread are public knowledge.

You are purposely trying to start a fight. Why not just go to the bar and actually fight someone? At least that way you will actually have done something with your life and you won't regret shitposting on an aboriginal stone polishing exchange twenty years from now.

> diet has all nutrients you need
> supplements

> close minded
> browsing Veeky Forums for fitness info

Just eat some nutritional breakfast cereal

About omega 3's, first article says the plasma levels of vegans and vegetarians are lower, not insufficient. Second article doesn't seem to be about veganism at all, 3rd article also seems to not be about veganism, and 4th article used 6 men and their habitual diets. Don't have access to full article on mobile but unless their habitual diet was vegan this still doesn't really give us anything useful.

1st carnitine study seems good, and it shows lower muscle and plasma carnitine for non meat eaters. Again though, lower doesn't necessarily mean deficient. 2nd study same thing, lower levels but don't seem to confirm whether or not they are actually deficient. 3rd link is a case study of a boy with systemic carnitine deficiency that was exacerbated by vegetarian diet. He wasn't a vegetarian until he was 10 years old, but agreed that a diet low in carnitine is not great for someone with carnitine deficiency. 4th link is convincing but I can't help being skeptical of the journal. I'm not sure what the research standards are in Bratislava or why it wouldn't be published in something more reputable if the methodology is sound. Anyway like I've said a single article isn't conclusive.

I'm getting exhausted, not sure how much longer I'll keep going...

Taurine article says right in the abstract that the vegan participants were self-reporting barely passable diets. Also they don't conclude any deficiency, just reduced plasma and urinary excretion levels.

First article on iodine actually does show vegans being deficient in iodine. That's a good point and by consuming more iodized salt they could probably counteract this. Second article also clearly shows iodine deficiency. So it's probably a good idea to supplement vegetarian/vegan diet with iodine.

CoQ10 article concludes that low levels may be due to vegetarian diet. Despite their research methodology not discussing anything about their subjects diets... Not sure how comparable the Indian vegetarian diet is to the American vegetarian diet.

Your first link on iron from nih is good but basically if vegans consume some cereal and white beans they can get all the iron they're recommended to get. Can't see an abstract for your second article or full text.

Don't see anything about veganism in the abstract of first vitamin A article. Second article is about individuals with genetic defects and insufficient vitamin A, not specifically vegans though persons with the enzymatic mutation would probably not fare well on a vegan diet. The study was in test tubes, not people by the way.

>defficiency in something are carnivores...

yeah you stupid piece of shit human beings are supposed to be OMNIVORES. If you ate STRICTLY meat you would clearly have some deficiencies you dumb cunt.

1st article on spermicides count was from Indian journal or physiology and pharmacology from 1978. There is no article, just 4 lines of poorly written abstract that doesn't talk about any details. The second one is a nice review article about soy... And it's safety. It has one small paragraph that talks about spermicides count in rodents, a pilot study in humans, and a case study. By the way in the following paragraph they refer to a meta analysis that says soy has no effect on testosterone. 1st testosterone article concludes that 6wk vegetarian diet had only minor decreases in testosterone and no changes in athletic performance. The second one states a significant decrease in T, but doesn't specify how big of a change that actually is in the abstract. The go on to suggest it may be useful in dietary recommendations for cancer. 3rd one shows that dietary changes can cause hormonal changes, which I'm not arguing. The question is whether or not that's problematic. Last T article I liked but I'm not sure that it's a case against veganism. Its conclusion is that high pufa a D low sfa and mufa correlates to lower T. So all it can recommend is that we keep mono and saturated fats high if we want higher levels of T.

Libido article is a case study of a type 1 diabetic. Implications of this towards the general population is debateable. A single case study is also not conclusive whatsoever especially when the rest of the articles (even the ones you linked) agree that soy is fine. Finally this is a problem that the individual had with soy, not a vegan diet

Well then i quest im right you Little faggot.
Why so mad, did i hurt your pussy or something

not him but are you german? i think i know who you are

I wish I saved the thread where a guy actually took the time to look through all of these links and point out how most have little or nothing to do with vegan diets

1st children article says all children had low vit D and that the omnivorous group took supplements while the 3 other groups were sent out in the sun. Not exactly comparable. Also they write that the vegetarian group had nutritional values better corresponding to the RDA. The omnivorous children had low iron... Second article is convincing but dates back to 94 and there is only an abstract, no full text. Would have liked to read more about that one.

Rickets article is very sad. But look at the sample diet of the first patient. Only vegetables and fruit, no nuts, seeds, grains, or meat substitutes. No oils. It's just objectively a bad diet. The article even states later on that vegetarian diet can be healthy provided you get all the required nutrients.

Birth weight article is in modern midwives, from 20 years ago, no full text and a garbage abstract. That one isn't even worth discussing.

We all know folate and b12 are essential. It has already been shown that a vegetarian diet can provide these.

Supplementation may be required. Or fortified foods. It's good cautionary advice for vegetarians but it's hardly damning.

The rest of the case studies are really depressing. And no one is saying that nutrient deficiency won'tead to problems. But how many case studies can you dig up of omnivorous mothers with deficiencies? As sad as they are, they don't really prove anything.

Overall most of the sources don't quite say what you think they do. Some say the opposite while some aren't even related. On the surface your post looks well constructed but really it's just a mish mash of vaguely relevant research that taken together doesn't say anything against veganism. It cautions of nutrient deficiency, and some articles even show support/safety/usefulness of vegetarian diets.

>Non-vegans spend time and money on preparing and storing their food
LMAO

Bud I'm doing it live

All in response to

Yeah i live in Germany a couple of years.
Where are you from from Germany, Stuttgart?

Vegans need to be mulched into fucking protein shakes.

*jizzes into shaker bottle*

Anything else, sir?

no... well im not a vegan, but i eat very rarely meat and if then not so much.
I dont think that i get 1g proton/1kg Body weight per day. I get my Protons only from Nuts, almonds etc...

But hell im stronger then the most guys on the gym that drink shakes after Training!
Im 71 kg and im stronger the most 80 kg men.
Your Body dont Need so much Protons, shakes are a fucking meme that the Fitness industry has produced for you to spend your Money and get cancer...

> I get my Protons only from Nuts, almonds etc...

Why not beans/lentils?

Probably just a matter of taste or convenience. Beans are pretty fucking great though.

Veeky Forums btfo

>Results about high fiber diet on vitamin D are interesting but an individual study is hardly conclusive of anything. I'm on mobile so I can't access the article so they may have an impressive sample size which would make it more convincing.
They had a sample size of 12 (twelve) men and 1 (one) woman.

"Thirteen healthy Caucasian subjects were studied, twelve male and one female, with a mean age of 32.5 years (range 28-44 years). The project received the approval of the hospital ethical committee and all subjects gave their informed consent. "

>and 4th article used 6 men and their habitual diets. Don't have access to full article on mobile but unless their habitual diet was vegan this still doesn't really give us anything useful.
"Subjects were healthy, non-smoking males (n6), medianage of 36 (27 – 40) years and median BMI of 24·7 (21·5–28·9) kg/m2. None of the subjects consumed fish oil dietarysupplements or regularly ate fish."
This part doesn't mention anything about meat, diary or eggs.

"The results of the present study show that the metabolism of [U-13C]ALNA presented in the context of a mixed macronutrient meal with a comparable n-3 fatty acid content to the typical UK diet was characterised by differential incorporation into plasma lipid pools and significant partitioning towards b-oxidation. "
This part mentions a "typical UK diet", which likely contains meat, diary and eggs.

Not that guy, but this is just my 2 cents.

I just prefer raw Food.
If i can get something raw, then i eat it raw.
Raw is convenience.

haha vegans btfo

makes you laugh, does it?

Just take one of the links and search for it in an archive. Eventually you should find the thread.
desuarchive.org/fit

It might be this (the replies to this post): desuarchive.org/fit/thread/40219821/#40222582

>but 99% of Hospital patients and the People tha go to the doctor cause of defficiency in something are carnivores...

WOW it's almost like 99% of people aren't vegan you retarded cuck

Stop being so dumb, there is no reason to go extreme in either direction. Eat meat/eggs once or twice a week and you'll be fine.

>Twenty-two experts from 10 countries reviewed more than 800 studies to reach their conclusions. They found that eating 50 grams of processed meat every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.

>While it is true that red meat has nutritional value – it is rich in protein, minerals and vitamins (e.g., vitamin B12) – many studies have also shown that high consumption of red meat can increase the risk of colorectal cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases, and may lead to higher risk of dying of those diseases (when compared to other good sources of protein, such as poultry, fish or legumes). Thus, much evidence suggests that an optimally healthy diet would be low in red meat.

>is well known that besides increasing the risk of some cancers, high red and processed meat intake can also increase risk of other chronic and potentially life threatening diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke and type II diabetes compared to other protein sources such as poultry, legumes and fish. Our group at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Medical School and others have also found higher rates of total mortality with higher intake of red or processed meat. In fact, according to 2013 data from the Global Burden of Disease Project, the number of total deaths (including deaths from cardiovascular disease or diabetes and colorectal cancers) attributable to a diet high in processed meat was 644,000.

Not being willing to kill and eat lesser species is a deficiency unto itself

i switched to being vegan for 6 months. the meme about you feeling healthy is a liar
i still feel the same as i was eating meat.
miss my chicken tendies tho

If meat is good for me, then why should I only eat it in moderation?

It's not good for you.
You should eat the bare minimum that satisfies your cravings

>You should eat the bare minimum that satisfies your cravings
I have no cravings for meat because I have an irrational fear of foodborne illness.