Janic's point is typical of those who are vegetarians / vegans for a long time and who become extremist borderline because vegetarianism is above all a question of moral choice, but has however no scientific basis or justification.
It is interesting to read such a statement which indicates a definite lack of information.
So :
a) the VG like everything outside the norm (as little as it is!) is necessarily extremist. Anyone who trains for the Olympic Games will seem extremist in the eyes of the Sunday jogger. Where is the border (scientifically)?
A diet where you have to use supplements to have a normal life is not a good diet.
b) another half-wrong idea. Actually living on supplementation is that there is something wrong with these choices. I never take it, nor my relatives and I grumble against this mode of doing often without justifications (whatever in those who are VG with industrial products, it is perhaps more careful). So there are different forms of VG (as there are lots of different carnists). Some are for ecological reasons, others for health reasons, others for sentimentality and often a mixture of everything. On the philosophical and dietetic level, the use of supplements is only necessary to make up for the deficits acquired during viandism (I speak here of those who come to the VG for health reasons), these supplements being intended to disappear in the short or medium term depending on the work of normal restoration of physiological functions (like a patient who will take medication until the pathology disappears, but some will remain on drugs until their death depending on what they have).
Plant proteins are very difficult for humans to ingest.
c) Ingestible or assimilable? What is vegetable protein first? A set of amino acids exactly as in meat products, but in different doses depending on each product as there are differences between pork, horse, beef or rabbit, or between cabbage carrots or apples.
d)
Second, feeding exclusively on seeds will not feed the planet, contrary to what they want to give us, it is above all the industrial lobbying of grain producers. Cereals are produced with a great deal of pesticides and fertilizers but do not prevent soil depletion.
Who is talking about feeding the planet with grains? The variety of plants available for human consumption is wide and not limited to seeds and especially not industrial cereals selected for their yield, their resistance to diseases, but never for their nutritional qualities. Hence food intolerances including those with gluten!
e)
If the use of fertilizers is necessary, it is precisely to offset this impoverishment. (yes, recently I have been anti-seed, given the state in which they put me).
You are, oh how much, right! Poor quality food cannot lead to good health, so avoid this… shit, as Coffe said!
f)
Man did not evolve to eat only vegetables and fruits. If we need vitamins and minerals (called essential) it is because our ancestors easily found them around them. I'm talking about the pre-agriculture period.
The particular point is that these vitamins and minerals are mainly found in plants and better assimilated than in meats which are only transformed vegetation.
So another commonplace physiologically and paleontologically inaccurate. The dentition of human fossils is identical to ours today and the anatomy makes it possible to classify food by individuals according to these criteria including the jaw and the teeth and we are still adapted to vegetable consumption and still not animal (but if you have references scientists who show the opposite I am a taker!)
g)
Cereals were only used during periods of famine (winters), and were certainly prepared in the same way as they are still used today in Africa (soaking, fermentation in order to limit the action of anti-nutrients that 'they contain).
It still remains true today, but plants are not limited to cereals again.
h)
Man is omnivorous and is known to be a hunter-gatherer. Basically everything he could hunt, and find to carry, he ate, mainly believed and this during most of our evolution (this includes insects which are still too often left out).
Numerous studies show this (be careful, it is often necessary to re-read the studies in full to see if the conclusion is indeed correct and not oriented as is often the case).
There too, there is confusion between anatomy and adaptation to the environment. Humans are not physiologically omnivorous, they consume what can ensure their survival (like the Cuicui Inuit), whether plant or animal. However, in the so-called evolutionary cycle, before becoming a hunter (which means the acquisition of tools, hunting methods, etc.), we had to survive until then without these technical means: how did he do it? Would it run faster than its prey like real carnivores? Did he savagely bite the thighs of brontozaures and other "critters"? Here again, we confuse adaptation to the environment (some humans have eaten other humans without establishing that humans are anthropophagous) and biological constitution.
I am lucky to have a demeter garden 200m from my home, I buy most of my vegetables there, it is certainly expensive, but it is worth it.
The same goes for animal protein. I found there are few producers who raise their cattle only in meadows, on grass (fodder in winters), their poultry run free outside, and are not stuffed with antibiotics, pigs freely bask around their water point. Certainly it is a little more expensive (although some parts of the animal are at the same price as those of battery farming)
Organic farming should not be confused with biologically compliant food. Organic marijuana would not be good for health either, nor biologically assimilable. The AB's mission is to eliminate chemicals and ensure better health of its products. Then that these are, intrinsically, favorable to human health (but it is already better) it is another aspect; Do not mix everything up !
I tried to reduce my animal proteins by replacing them with vegetable proteins, all that that accomplished and gaining fat, and this in spite of my efforts to lose weight. I also felt bloated, and in bad shape.
Dietetics (adapted to health) does not consist of an approximate tinkering where we add and subtract haphazardly the luck and the weight gain, in fat, underlines a deficient metabolism, requiring perhaps a basic work, to "Set the record straight"
Just like the vegetarians / links, I made a moral commitment:
My moral commitment is to eat foods that are closer to what nature is capable of producing, and this by being just guided by the hand of man, and not forced as is the case with production food industry (I do not touch GMOs, everything that is processed is banned, sugar is almost non-existent).
It’s already here and it’s a lot, it remains to be seen whether you are happy with it or want to go further.