Vegan: Healthy or Unhealty?

ReconToaster wrote:eh, as long as they're taking proper supplements to make up for the nutrients that they're missing out on... it seems perfectly healthy to me.

I don't really understand to whole "anti-medication" mentality. You may say it's unnatural but.... well so is all medication. Being unnatural doesn't make it "bad."

Medication is there to help. If it can help you maintain your ideal life-style, by all means take it.

Couldn't I then argue that influenza is healthy, because with the proper supplements and medications, I will appear healthy? The point is, if you have to take a medication just to survive, you are not "healthy." Not partaking in meat, fish, milk, cheese, eggs, etc is unhealthy, despite the fact that people push the concept that vegetarians and vegans are inherently more healthy than us normal people.

Vegetarians might, since they can still eat eggs and dairy.The Vegan is unhealthy. Vegans and Vegetarians aren't the same.
Seriously, how is the Vegan diet any better than smoking? You have to take supplements(drugs) EVERYDAY to survive. Hell, it's worse than smoking. At least smoking won't kill you if you stop using tobacco.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:eh, as long as they're taking proper supplements to make up for the nutrients that they're missing out on... it seems perfectly healthy to me.

I don't really understand to whole "anti-medication" mentality. You may say it's unnatural but.... well so is all medication. Being unnatural doesn't make it "bad."

Medication is there to help. If it can help you maintain your ideal life-style, by all means take it.

Couldn't I then argue that influenza is healthy, because with the proper supplements and medications, I will appear healthy? The point is, if you have to take a medication just to survive, you are not "healthy." Not partaking in meat, fish, milk, cheese, eggs, etc is unhealthy, despite the fact that people push the concept that vegetarians and vegans are inherently more healthy than us normal people.

In the end, if you take the nutrient supplements, you're still healthy...

Influenza is unhealthy, because well.. we know why.

Vegan diet isn't, because the supplements and medication are apart of your diet. What difference does it make if you take your nutrients through a pill rather than through meat? While the food you actually eat in a vegan diet isn't exactly healthy, you get the supplement. I don't see the difference, wether you take the nutrients in your food, or in a pill doesn't really matter. Eating non-vegan foods just has the perk of having them already in there. I'm not going to argue that it's more healthy, though i'm sure you can, but i'm just going to say the diet is helathy.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:eh, as long as they're taking proper supplements to make up for the nutrients that they're missing out on... it seems perfectly healthy to me.

I don't really understand to whole "anti-medication" mentality. You may say it's unnatural but.... well so is all medication. Being unnatural doesn't make it "bad."

Medication is there to help. If it can help you maintain your ideal life-style, by all means take it.

Couldn't I then argue that influenza is healthy, because with the proper supplements and medications, I will appear healthy? The point is, if you have to take a medication just to survive, you are not "healthy." Not partaking in meat, fish, milk, cheese, eggs, etc is unhealthy, despite the fact that people push the concept that vegetarians and vegans are inherently more healthy than us normal people.

How is medication any different from actual food? Both are artificially produced. Both are ingested orally. Both provide supplements to your body. We're not talking about whether or not the people are healthy, we're talking about whether or not the diet is healthy. In many cases, such supplements ARE PART OF the vegan diet.

What separates supplements from what you consider food? You might say that they're unnatural, but so are factory farms and massive-scale, chemically fertilized plantations.

(I read Gauz' post after writing this. His points are very similar to mine)

The thing is, food can be grown and produced organiclly...Medication can't.
Not all food is articfically made. Most if not all medicine is.

Gauz wrote:In the end, if you take the nutrient supplements, you're still healthy...

Because...?

Gauz wrote:Influenza is unhealthy, because well.. we know why.

Ya, that isn't a cop out...[/sarcasm]

Gauz wrote:Vegan diet isn't, because the supplements and medication are apart of your diet. What difference does it make if you take your nutrients through a pill rather than through meat? While the food you actually eat in a vegan diet isn't exactly healthy, you get the supplement. I don't see the difference, wether you take the nutrients in your food, or in a pill doesn't really matter. Eating non-vegan foods just has the perk of having them already in there. I'm not going to argue that it's more healthy, though i'm sure you can, but i'm just going to say the diet is helathy.

The very nature of medication and supplements is that you take them because you are unhealthy, and need them to feign healthiness. That's why you take advil when you have the flu. You are unhealthy, and need the advil to seem healthy.

ReconToaster wrote: How is medication any different from actual food? Both are artificially produced. Both are ingested orally. Both provide supplements to your body. We're not talking about whether or not the people are healthy, we're talking about whether or not the diet is healthy. In many cases, such supplements ARE PART OF the vegan diet.

What separates supplements from what you consider food? You might say that they're unnatural, but so are factory farms and massive-scale, chemically fertilized plantations.

(I read Gauz' post after writing this. His points are very similar to mine)

The very nature of medication is that you take it because you are unhealthy. By your line of reasoning, I could say that eating paste is healthy, as long as your diet also includes getting your stomach pumped every now and then! A diet is healthy or unhealthy based on what you eat, not what medication you might also take with it. If I'm a schizophrenic, then I am not mentally healthy. Even if I take pills for it, I'm not mentally healthy, I'm just able to maintain the guise of mental health due to my reliance on pills.

And yes, there is an inherent difference between medicine and food.

Gold Spartan5 wrote:The thing is, food can be grown and produced organiclly...Medication can't.
Not all food is articfically made. Most if not all medicine is.

It can be... but not at a rate which actually supports large-scale civilization. Try feeding the world without pesticides... it's not gonna happen.

Either way, does it really matter if it's artificial or not? As long as it provides the same nutritional benefits as actual food, I see no problem with it. Is it just that we fear making ourselves too dependent on artificial products? If that's the case... we fucked that up a looonnng time ago.

rot wrote:The very nature of medication is that you take it because you are unhealthy. By your line of reasoning, I could say that eating paste is healthy, as long as your diet also includes getting your stomach pumped every now and then! A diet is healthy or unhealthy based on what you eat, not what medication you might also take with it. If I'm a schizophrenic, then I am not mentally healthy. Even if I take pills for it, I'm not mentally healthy, I'm just able to maintain the guise of mental health due to my reliance on pills.

You're talking about pre-existing diseases and dysfunctions. If someone is mentally unhealthy, they take medication to COUNTER it. If someone has influenza, they take medication to COUNTER it. If someone is on a vegan diet, they take medication to SUPPLEMENT it.

They are not countering an already existing illness. They are preventing illness from occurring by supplementing their vegan diet with certain nutrients. I see no difference between I see no difference between that, and eating bananas in order to obtain more vitamin B. One way just happens to taste better. They contain the SAME NUTRIENTS. They are ingested in the SAME WAY. One is simply more artificial than the other, and any objection to that is superficial.

Rot wrote: And yes, there is an inherent difference between medicine and food.

Saying it doesn't make it true. Tell me, what nutritional difference there is between eating a normal diet, and eating a vegan diet with artificial supplements? I don't care whether or not one is more natural than the other. That's not what we're discussing.

Vitamin B12. Comes from meat. Calcium. Vitamin D. Three needed vitamins. You're taking THREE pills to survive on your diet. Vegan diet isn't very durable. ESPECIALLY since one shortage of said pills is probably going to kill you.
On another note, Gauz and Recon say it's healthy....Yet the vote remains 0-18.

ReconToaster wrote: You're talking about pre-existing diseases and dysfunctions. If someone is mentally unhealthy, they take medication to COUNTER it. If someone has influenza, they take medication to COUNTER it. If someone is on a vegan diet, they take medication to SUPPLEMENT it.

They are not countering an already existing illness. They are preventing illness from occurring by supplementing their vegan diet with certain nutrients. I see no difference between I see no difference between that, and eating bananas in order to obtain more vitamin B. One way just happens to taste better. They contain the SAME NUTRIENTS. They are ingested in the SAME WAY. One is simply more artificial than the other, and any objection to that is superficial.

As far as I'm concerned, you're taking supplements to counter the ill effects that will be caused by the vegan diet, just like you take medicine to counter psychosis and episodes as a schizophrenic.

ReconToaster wrote:Saying it doesn't make it true. Tell me, what nutritional difference there is between eating a normal diet, and eating a vegan diet with artificial supplements? I don't care whether or not one is more natural than the other. That's not what we're discussing.

The same can be said of your argument. The difference is that you have drawn a single parallel between supplements and food: that both are nutritious. Well, how about some differences?

• You eat food. You do not eat medicine (rather, you swallow it whole so that it will reach your stomach before dissolving).
  
• Food is naturally occurring. Most of the food you eat can be grown naturally. Most medicines, especially nutrition supplements, do not occur naturally, at all, ever.
  
• You usually have to make some basic preparations for food. For example, the food might have to be cooked. Some food can even be eaten without preparation. Supplements have to be manufactured to get all of the right ingredients into the pill, and cannot be prepared by the average guy without special equipment that costs lots of money.
  
• Food is filling. Pills are not.
  
• We also eat food to enjoy the taste. Pills do not have any taste, and are not designed to be tasted.

So no, food != supplements.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, you're taking supplements to counter the ill effects that will be caused by the vegan diet, just like you take medicine to counter psychosis and episodes as a schizophrenic.

You're obviously not very extensively concerned. We can argue semantics for as long as we want, but the fact of the matter is that Vegans takes vitamins to supplement the rest of their diet. Medication for psychosis and other mental disorders contain chemicals which have direct effects on the brain. They have no relation to food, other than being ingested orally.

Vitamins contribute the same nutritious material as food does. They both satisfy the same nutritional needs. Pills taken for the flu, and for psychosis, have entirely different purposes, and entirely different effects, and are therefore not really applicable to this argument.

Supplements can be considered to be "part of a diet" because they contribute to the same needs.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

• You eat food. You do not eat medicine (rather, you swallow it whole so that it will reach your stomach before dissolving).
  
• Food is naturally occurring. Most of the food you eat can be grown naturally. Most medicines, especially nutrition supplements, do not occur naturally, at all, ever.
  
• You usually have to make some basic preparations for food. For example, the food might have to be cooked. Some food can even be eaten without preparation. Supplements have to be manufactured to get all of the right ingredients into the pill, and cannot be prepared by the average guy without special equipment that costs lots of money.
  
• Food is filling. Pills are not.
  
• We also eat food to enjoy the taste. Pills do not have any taste, and are not designed to be tasted.

So no, food != supplements.

Most of those things you listed aren't really relevant. Sure, supplements are different from foods, but they still both satisfy the same nutritional needs. Most of what you listed focuses on things like tradition, and what you, as a person, seem to favor.

So what if pills don't taste nice? Who cares if they aren't filling? They're taken alongside actual food, so those needs are already satisfied.

How the supplements are prepared, whether or not they're naturally occurring, and whether or not they can be prepared by the average person have nothing to do with supplemental/nutritional value.

OH GOD... The multiquoting, it begins XD

ReconToaster wrote:They are ingested in the SAME WAY.

THAT IS NOT TRUE O.o lol jk

ReconToaster wrote: You're obviously not very extensively concerned. We can argue semantics for as long as we want, but the fact of the matter is that Vegans takes vitamins to supplement the rest of their diet. Medication for psychosis and other mental disorders contain chemicals which have direct effects on the brain. They have no relation to food, other than being ingested orally.

And that they are taking these pills because, if they didn't, they'd get sick. What do you know, I've drawn an almost stronger correlation to supplements and medication that you have between supplements and food!

ReconToaster wrote: Vitamins contribute the same nutritious material as food does. They both satisfy the same nutritional needs. Pills taken for the flu, and for psychosis, have entirely different purposes, and entirely different effects, and are therefore not really applicable to this argument.

Supplements can be considered to be "part of a diet" because they contribute to the same needs.

In essence, both supplements and pills introduce a chemical into your body that incurs a specific effect that usually results in you not being sick. With flu, this chemical is one that helps you to destroy influenza. With mental disorders, let's take clinical depression as an example, this chemical is called serotonin, and is rather important for your mental stability. In supplements, the chemicals vary from calcium to Vitamin D.

ReconToaster wrote:Most of those things you listed aren't really relevant. Sure, supplements are different from foods, but they still both satisfy the same nutritional needs.

And what you've done is drawn a single parallel between supplements and foods and jabbered on about how it is the only thing relevant because you said so.

ReconToaster wrote:Most of what you listed focuses on things like tradition, and what you, as a person, seem to favor.

Tradition? Are you still buggering on about how we need pesticides to mass produce food? Because I have bad news for you. Even with pesticides and growth hormones and windowless ventilation chambers and all that shit that goes into the meat packing industry in todays age, beef still occurs naturally, and Vitamin B₁₂ tablets do not!

ReconToaster wrote:So what if pills don't taste nice? Who cares if they aren't filling? They're taken alongside actual food, so those needs are already satisfied.

The point being, supplements are not food. By the vague criterion that you're using to define food, we could call exercise or a good sleeping pattern food!

ReconToaster wrote:How the supplements are prepared, whether or not they're naturally occurring, and whether or not they can be prepared by the average person have nothing to do with supplemental/nutritional value.

What you seem to have failed to realize is that only you are using nutrition as the single criterion with which to define what does and does not go in a diet. Everyone else, be it the dictionary, which explicitly states in every definition that a diet is something to do with your intake of food and drink, PERIOD, or Wikipedia, which defines a diet as the "sum of food consumed by a person or other organism," KEY WORD BEING FOOD, seems to have it figured out that a diet is something to do with food, and having almost nothing to do with what other substances we can take that might also affect nutrition, because those aren't part of a diet, but rather something to let certain less healthy diets, because those diets cannot, on their own, stand. If I had Insulin shot directly into my blood stream, it would have fuck all to do with my diet. Sure, it would probably be good for my nutrition were I a diabetic, but it would be ultimately a separate entity when compared with my diet.

Rot you are pretty much totally correct here, and entirely valid, BUT how exactly does the condition of supplements as a non-food object sway your, or any of our opinions on Veganism? Sure, it's not a food, and sure it's not naturally occuring, but is this problematic at all for the Vegans who properly supplement their diet?

They don't eat meat for a reason, and if they can properly obtain the supplementary needs that meat fulfils without eating meat, where is the problem?

The question here is whether or not the Vegan diet is healthy. Because I do not qualify supplements as part of a diet, as they are not food, then they do not count when qualifying if the Vegan diet is or is not healthy. Is the Vegan lifestyle healthy? Well, the buggers stand a chance if they remember to take their three or four or five pills every day, but bugger all knows that I forget to take my pills all the time, and I'd never want to trust my life to remembering to take pills because I've decided that eating animals that have already been killed and packaged is crueler than letting them have died in vain for no better reason than to please Walmart's demand for meat.

rot wrote:And that they are taking these pills because, if they didn't, they'd get sick.

And you eat fruits and vegetables because if you didn't, you'd get sick.

Rot wrote:In essence, both supplements and pills introduce a chemical into your body that incurs a specific effect that usually results in you not being sick. With flu, this chemical is one that helps you to destroy influenza. With mental disorders, let's take clinical depression as an example, this chemical is called serotonin, and is rather important for your mental stability. In supplements, the chemicals vary from calcium to Vitamin D.

I like the way you framed it there. However, even if we do accept supplements as "medication," I don't see why we can't consider medication to be part of a diet.

Rot wrote:Tradition? Are you still buggering on about how we need pesticides to mass produce food? Because I have bad news for you. Even with pesticides and growth hormones and windowless ventilation chambers and all that shit that goes into the meat packing industry in todays age, beef still occurs naturally, and Vitamin B12 tablets do not!

No, I'm saying that you're disqualifying supplements as part of a diet based on nit-picky things, like the fact that they're not naturally occurring, or that they cannot be prepared by the average person.

Rot wrote:The point being, supplements are not food. By the vague criterion that you're using to define food, we could call exercise or a good sleeping pattern food!

Don't those produce chemicals that are different from what is found in food?

Rot wrote:What you seem to have failed to realize is that only you are using nutrition as the single criterion with which to define what does and does not go in a diet. Everyone else, be it the dictionary, which explicitly states in every definition that a diet is something to do with your intake of food and drink, PERIOD, or Wikipedia, which defines a diet as the "sum of food consumed by a person or other organism," KEY WORD BEING FOOD, seems to have it figured out that a diet is something to do with food, and having almost nothing to do with what other substances we can take that might also affect nutrition, because those aren't part of a diet, but rather something to let certain less healthy diets, because those diets cannot, on their own, stand.

The dictionary also defines "Universe" as "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena," when today, we often use the term "universe" to describe one of many groups in the cosmos.

As the world changes, definitions change. The definition of "diet" was decided upon long before the invention of supplement pills.

Rot wrote:Well, the buggers stand a chance if they remember to take their three or four or five pills every day, but bugger all knows that I forget to take my pills all the time,

I'm sure it's not that fragile of a diet. I'm sure I get a hell of a lot less nutrients from my diet than vegans on supplements do. I'm not dropping dead.

Rot wrote:and I'd never want to trust my life to remembering to take pills because I've decided that eating animals that have already been killed and packaged is crueler than letting them have died in vain for no better reason than to please Walmart's demand for meat.

Okay, that's just stupid. Now, we're not arguing about whether or not people should be vegetarian/vegan, but the goal of committing to either of those life-styles is to decrease demand for meat, which, over time, theoretically, decreases supply (aka the killing of animals.)