I’m just going to leave this here. Have at it! Haha.
All kidding aside, the four diets they looked at are problematic because they are all high carb diets. So I could see how in the realm of high carb intake, this could be the best. That being said, the title is misleading, because it implies it is the best ever, not the best among these 4.
“Vegans had the best-looking panels across the board“
Oh dear, it looks like they have fallen into the trap of making assumptions about what is good or bad panels based on the CW, which we know is wrong.
As usual, a clickbait article pretending to communicate science.
It’s so healthy that I get this when I Google: “Why I quit vegan”:
About 65,800,000 results (0.53 seconds)
Can’t exactly claim a diet is healthy when every person who does it must take a Vitamin B12 supplement or risk getting sick. If your diet requires a supplement, it can’t be qualified as healthy.
Vegans always look weak and sickly to me. I’ve seen many healthy looking vegetarians though.
But you guys, Beyonce and Tom Hardy are doing it so we should too.
I’m not sure that’s really fair, and certainly isn’t what everyone would consider as a problem. The supplement simply becomes part of the diet, and plenty of people are used to the idea of taking supplements anyway so it wouldn’t register as a drawback to them.
I get that under certain wellness and dietary philosophies it’s considered a negative point, but there’s nothing necessarily problematic about it on it’s own.
It’s problematic when Vegans try to convince us that humans are meant to be animal-free and there’s this One Big Thing that we can only get naturally from animal foods, that Vegans must take in order not to keel over. It’s dishonest to their stated ideology.
If someone simply had a disorder that meant they had issues absorbing iron, I wouldn’t have an issue with them supplementing. But this is a self-inflicted wound Vegans do to themselves. Ergo, the diet cannot be considered “the healthiest” when supplementing is mandatory.
That’s a problem for particular types of vegan arguments, I agree. It’s not a problem necessarily for something to be considered “the healthiest” on it’s own, as long as the supplement is understood to be a key aspect.
There’s nothing particularly wrong on it’s own with calling an entirely manufactured and artificial diet, that’s close enough to being equivalent to supplements in exact amounts of all nutrients, the healthiest diet, if all you are looking for is something that is healthy and it happens to be so. Coherency with other arguments can be a problem if someone goes around saying it’s entirely natural and like our ancestors when it’s not (a problem many paleo schemes run into as well), but regardless, the claim “healthiest” only needs something to result in highest health, regardless of whether that involves supplementing or not.
“This is the healthiest diet. Also, here’s a pill/liquid to ensure it doesn’t kill you.”
If the pill is part of the diet, then it’s all self contained.
Similarly, on Keto most people need to put salt on their food or in their food so they don’t die.
With any diet in existence, if you take out a key component that brings essential nutrients, you will die.
How do I explain to someone that salt is a naturally-occurring resource that most people do not supplement in pill form, whereas supplementing B12 when there is a natural source available and having a diet that requires that supplementation (because it forbids the use of the natural resource) cannot be considered healthy?
I think you are considering “involving only natural [meaning found in nature] sources” as a criteria for “healthy” which is not really necessary. Healthy is about the result of health (physical, emotional, spiritual, whatever a particular person may consider) when discussing a diet, and while for some ‘natural’ may make them feel psychologically better, I don’t think that’s what most are considering (I certainly am not, nor are all the people that take supplements on any diet at all or as prescribed by a doctor, or who are ready to eat 3D printed meats and other extremely artificial foods).
If my body ends up having no biomarkers of disease, is robust, looks great, allows me to accomplish all the tasks I desire, can continue for what I would consider a substantial lifespan and beyond that of others on different diets, and keeps me feeling great and avoids sickness, I’d likely consider that healthy in a strict physical sense. If it required eating humans immediately after killing them, on the other hand, I might consider it unhealthy in a psychological, spiritual or moral sense, but I can’t really argue with the idea that it’s perhaps healthy in the physical health sense if the results show that to be the case.
There may be reasons to avoid even the “healthiest diet in the world”, and different people can raise different objections to it, but that doesn’t stop it from being the healthiest diet in the world if the objection is anything other than on the grounds of the results on health of the dieter.
But, perhaps to be fair, health should be defined and the standard for measurement needs to be understood if we really want to come to a conclusion of what is healthy vs not healthy vs healthiest, and I don’t think that’s been established yet (I’ve indicated my idea above, but that certainly won’t agree with everyone’s idea).
That’s a false equivalency argument. Most people who eat a western diet are deficient in magnesium but it affects the body differently when they’re using glucose as their energy source. Additionally, there’s a difference in the type of salt, table salt (sodium chloride) won’t be of any benefit on the keto diet…
Because you are trying to compare two examples that don’t have a correlation.
People on a western diet are usually deficient in magnesium anyway. The change in diet makes that fact more obvious when eating a keto diet hence the required uptake in salt (which most people do eat salt on a regular basis, they just eat the wrong kind i.e. table salt). People who are on a vegan diet aren’t deficient in B12 until they start eating a vegan diet. Pretty straight forward…
They do have a correlation.
The argument was, “supplimenting a nutrient makes a diet unhealthy”.
The comparison was, “supplementing a nutrient on a diet”.
This is not a false equivalence, this was comparing two things on the core matter itself and claiming the minor difference in exact nutrient supplemented or method doesn’t change the matter in a way that thus far appears to be relevant to the term at hand.
Been on keto one year. Used the same amount of salt I used before. Maybe I salted a lot but don’t give it a second thought. I think the whole salt thing is over rated.
Nuh-uh is not an argument. Keto dieters don’t become deficient in magnesium because of the keto diet. Vegans become deficient in B12 because of their diet. It’s a false equivalency no matter how many times you word salad your response.
