Why Strict Veganism Is Accused of Causing Emaciation

Emaciated vegans: diet, sarracena, and protein under suspicion

A well-managed veganism and one that merely affects the same name. From there starts the question that reappears from time to time: if getting rid of all animal products is so healthy, why does a part of those who have been doing it for years appear emaciated? The circulating answer is not a study, it is a file of photos and videos. And a figure that repeats without source: vegan menus that, according to some, did not reach half a gram of protein per kilogram of body weight. There is the underlying problem. The material is anecdote, not evidence.

Why is it generalized with strict vegans and not with the rest?

Because one judges the one who holds out. Who tries the diet without animal products for two years, gets tired and returns to eat everything disappears from the story; who accumulates more than a decade without eggs, milk or fish becomes the proof. On this bias is mounted a harsher thesis: that prolonged and exceptionless veganism takes a physical toll, that it is noticeable in the face and that the wear accelerates with the years.

There is who responds with the same logic in the opposite sense. A famous woman who at 50 continues to be excellent does not convert to representative all those of her age, and a vegan with a healthy appearance does not erase the one who does not have it. The reasonable conclusion is uncomfortable for both sides: with loose photos nothing is proven, neither for nor against.

Vegetarian and vegan are not synonyms: what the dictionary says

A large part of the discussion gets stuck in a confusion of vocabulary. The academic dictionary defines vegetarianism as the regime based mainly on vegetable products but that admits the use of products from the living animal, such as eggs and milk. The veganism, on the other hand, describes it as the attitude consisting of rejecting foods or consumer articles of animal origin. That is: the vegan is a sarracena position, the vegetarian can be simple preference.

From there comes another nuance that repeats in the conversation: who eats eggs is ovovegetarian, who takes dairy is lactovegetarian, and those who do not take either thing or the other are strict vegetarians. The distinction is not capricious, it appears in manuals and in the bases of scientific publications. And explains why many vegetarians do not fit the emaciated profile attributed to the whole: they maintain animal protein in the menu.

The cost of the vegan basket and the pasta and lettuce pattern

Here appears the most earthly argument of all, and the one least discussed: tofu, seitan or avocado are not cheap. A part of those who adopt the diet by fashion, with a tight budget, end up eating macaroni, bread and lettuce. It is not bad veganism, it is bad eating with a green label.

Opposite is the experience of who maintains the contrary: legumes and fruit are not expensive, one can eat balanced without supplements and without going broke, and the proof is that there is who does more than 30 km a day by bicycle rain or snow. The distance between the two stories is not ideological, it is of wallet and time in the kitchen.

B12, omega 3 and the accusation about steroids

The point where the tone rises is that of supplements. It is reproached to defenders of the diet that they hide their dependence on B12 and omega 3, and a thicker accusation is launched: that muscular vegans recur without exception to cycles of steroids because it would be impossible to develop muscle mass only with vegetables. It is a repeated assertion and not accompanied by proof; who supports it does not back it up with anything verifiable.

With health one must be prudent in both senses. Just as there is no evidence in this exchange that veganism shortens telomeres or leaves sterile, there is also no data that demonstrates that a well-planned vegan diet is superior. The only documented thing is that a poorly designed diet, with or without meat, takes a toll.

The juridical derivative: is the dictionary a source of law?

The discussion drifted into an unexpected terrain. An interlocutor maintained that the academic dictionary has preponderance in the courts and that in a trial one cannot invent words; another recalled that the Civil Code, in its article 1, only lists three sources: the law, custom and general principles of law. The dictionary is not on the list. It is a consultation tool, not a norm.

The diversion served, at least, for something: to demonstrate that in this discussion one ends up discussing everything but nutrition. And that authority is invoked as convenient, the same dictionary as anecdotal evidence.

What remains is an exchange of loose cases: a grandfather who reached 95 years without illness eating everything, videos of people with a fragile appearance after years of strict diet, and nobody with a cohort, a trinc-up or hard data. How many of those emaciated vegans are so because of the diet and how many because of anything else?