Jump to content

Talk:Vegan nutrition/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DHA converts to EPA?

[edit]

Quite certain that this is not the case, despite what it written in article. ALA is the parent omega-3, which partially converts to SDA, which partially converts to EPA, which partially converts to DHA. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I had gathered from my readings on the subject. - Kim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.6.68 (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Brenda Davis's writing on these issues. MaynardClark (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive

[edit]

This article needs to look less like a defense of veganism (i.e. problem, then faultless answer that supposedly dismisses the problem), and more like the vegetarianism article that accurately reports facts without seeming defensive. Ronk01 talk 13:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs much work. I just copied sections of Vegetarian nutrition to get the ball rolling. However I do believe that it is important to have separate nutrition articles for veganism and vegetarianism, given that there has now been much research into the health benefits of plant-based diets excluding dairy (China Study etc) and that the possible nutritional deficiencies are very different (e.g. B12 not an issue with ovo-lacto vegetarianism). Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we call it, the issues involve 'is veganism rationally do-able?' If tweaking is involved, so be it. But that's a question rational persons ask, WHEN asking why MIGHT we be morally obligated to be vegan? Issues should be addressed, including what moral agendas make it important for persons to prioritize SOLVING these questions in as profoundly responsible a manner as possible. MaynardClark (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More info on more nutrients

[edit]

I really think we should have more info about more nutrients in this article, like: Taurine, Carnitine, Glucosamine. We can surely find a lot of information on the web, but many times we find only hypothesis or biased information, and we may have to read a lot to be able to draw a conclusion. I think in this article we should have an overview, and the reference should be clinical trials as much as possible. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to find reliable sources discussing these as they directly relate to vegan nutrition we would be able to use it. Please note two parts of this: 1) Reliable sources are needed (see the link for more info) and 2) The sources must be directly discussing the compounds in relation to vegan nutrition. We cannot draw conclusions or take pieces of information from more than one source and add it together to make statements that neither source makes alone. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast reply, I understood what you said. I will search for some reliable sources and I will post it in the Talk page before to make sure it's okay. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium study

[edit]

Hi user 142.176.6.68,

Just wanted to discuss a revert I did of your addition of the word "some", which you then reverted back to your version. The sentence in question (your version, with bold on the word I disagree with) is:

The EPIC-Oxford study suggested that some vegans have an increased risk of bone fractures over meat eaters and vegetarians, likely because of lower dietary calcium intake, but that vegans consuming more than 525 mg/day had a risk of fractures similar to other groups.

The cited study says in its conclusion:

The higher fracture risk in the vegans appeared to be a consequence of their considerably lower mean calcium intake.

The conclusion is that the group of vegans as a whole had ON AVERAGE a higher risk of fractures. Yes, you can break it down so that you look at those in the group who consumed >525mg (and had about same risk as non-vegans) and those who consumed <=525mg (who had much higher risk), but the fact is that the vegan group as a whole had a higher risk because they on average were not eating that higher amount of calcium.

I would be OK with changing the "some vegans" to "vegans who consumed 525mg/day or less of calcium". But I also think it's important to point out the main conclusion of the study, which is that the group as a whole had a higher risk.

Thanks :)

Wikidsoup [talk] 21:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


 2 months later ... I've gone ahead and revised the description of the study to better reflect the stated conclusion of the study. snacks [talk] 18:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope someone fixes these mistakes

[edit]

I started trying to fix mistakes in this article but got a sharp, hostile response, so I'll go put my time into something else.

If someone else wants to fix this article, here are the mistakes I see at a glance:

  • Intro
    • intro has a list of "ingredient replacements" - replacements for what? Nutritional properties? Since when is prune puree and soy yogurt part of some special class of foods for vegan nutrition?
    • it lists "silken tofu" - any tofu would do (in fact, I think the silken variety is the wateriest one, with lowest nutrient density)
    • Highlights vitamin B2 as a deficiency risk for vegans - the cited studies disagree
  • Background
    • implies that vegan nutrition began with a group of American doctors that are only really active since the 80s
      The listed doctors cite predecessors such as Nathan Pritikin, Walter Kempner and Denis Parsons Burkitt (who, like Ornish, who's in this article, sometimes allow non-vegan foods). And anyway, there were vegans hundreds of years ago too.
    • Mentions a disagreement between four doctors about nuts, without giving any info on the disagreement or which sides each group are on
    • Says T. Colin Campbell is on Esselstyn's side of the nut debate. Wrong.
    • Presents the nut issue as a disagreement when it is actually just different advice for groups with different needs
    • Contains a strange paragraph in the "Background" section which talks about a single athlete (if you want to make it more exhaustive, there are others here) and a list of nutrients that vegans get a lot of.
  • Nutrition
    • Repeats the nonsense about vegans having a noteworthy riboflavin risk
    • The calcium section says acid-forming animal products cause the body to leech calcium from our bones to neutralise the Ph. This is a theory, and recent studies suggest it's wrong. See sources at [1]

Maybe if existing editors were less hostile to newcomers, Wikipedia would have attracted and retained a larger contributor base and these errors would have been fixed long ago. Great floors (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at our main Veganism article, most of the topics here seem to be covered in more depth there. I suggest this article is merged to Veganism. Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that's it? You undo my edits and tell me to plead for changes on the Talk page. And then when I do this, you ignore my comments? (With the exception of deleting one sentence.) Am I allowed to edit the article yet? Great floors (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be merged, yes. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And nobody does anything. I highlighted factual mistakes including two things that WP is sensitive about: medical policy violations and wrong information being attributed to individuals. I clearly know this topic. I'm not saying my edit was perfect, but it was an improvement and I would have been a useful addition to the contribution team, but I got told to go away and I've been ignored since then. I'll let it drop now. 2017's a new year. Looking forward to working together. Great floors (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about the proposed merge? Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see arguments for and against. So I've no opinion. I think my edits helped to give this article some kind of purpose, by explaining that there were different ways to look at this: some focus on health optimisation (à la Greger, Esselstyn, Campbell), others on meeting the basics as long as it doesn't hurt animals (so, avoiding b12 deficiency, vitamin D, iron...). The latter group are sometimes in conflict with the former because by being too strict with the health advice (example: "No oil!"), they make it difficult and then people mightn't stay on the vegan diet. And the topic can also be looked at in terms of reports on what is the nutritional state of vegans today.
Or these could be covered in the veganism article (and maybe the healthy eating part would go in the plant based diet article). But the mistakes listed above should be fixed either way. Great floors (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check for Biased Articles and Tone

[edit]

I would suggest taking away the biased tone of the article towards vegan diets over the standard American diet. Also, some of your sources, such as the "Vitamin B12 in the Vegan Diet" article and the "Vitamin B12: Are you Getting it?" article come from biased, non-scholars sources; perhaps instead use a study from a medical journal to prove your claim. I also agree with the others that there needs to be more information on the nutrients needed to form a well rounded and sustainable vegan diet, there are far more than the few noted in the article.--Sgberkeley19 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of merger with veganism

[edit]

This article does not provide significant expansion of content that already appears in the page of veganism, except the section on choline. In my opinion, it does not make sense as an isolated page. I proposed to merge them. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative is to move it to Plant-based nutrition and work the text to suit. ~ R.T.G 15:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on Plant-based diet where the information is complimentary to this "Vegan nutrition" article. Merely the titles clash or they'd already be a pair. ~ R.T.G 15:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge with Veganism on the grounds of WP:SIZE (noting that the Veganism page already runs to 233kB, significantly over the 100kB usual upper limit), while Plant-based diet has a somewhat different focus from Vegan nutrition, in that that the latter focusses on veganism rather than other forms of plant-based diet. I therefore suggest leaving the pages where they are. Klbrain (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing tags This proposal was made 1.5 years and 80,000 bytes ago. The situation has changed so drastically that this merger wouldn't be feasible anymore without major WP:SIZE issues imposed on an article already over twice the recommended length to split. If anyone is interested in pursuing this merger in the future please place new tags and start a discussion at Talk:Veganism.Trialpears (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Vegan nutrition

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Vegan nutrition's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "efsa":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The title is very clear Chris.lilo (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved nutrition sections from Veganism here

[edit]

Veganism was more extensive than Vegan nutrition so I just moved most of the nutrition content from there to this article, to cut the size of Veganism. It also makes a lot of sense to have more detail here. I got the OK of one other user, no one else commented, so I went ahead :) See Talk:Veganism#Restructuring and moving nutrition information to Vegan nutrition --Trimton (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer

[edit]

Trimton is repeatedly trying to force cancer-related content into the article with is not acceptable. Note that any medical claims need WP:MEDRS sources: so not the "Mayo Clinic", not sources which are out-of-date (especially more than 5 years old when newer ones are available). In addition, WP:NOR is policy so inclusion of content which is not about "vegan nutrition" (i.e. the meat stuff) is not good. Alexbrn (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the lead of this article states that vegan nutrition also covers the general health effects of vegan nutrition. It's not OR because of the to Mayo clinic reference. Indeed, the connection is mentioned in a MEDRS compliant review at [2], although rejected, in 2016. Why did you never mention MEDRS in edit summaries? And what's the new evidence available you're talking about? Please add it to the article or discuss here, for the benefit of the reader, and to help understand what you mean ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 20:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cite a reputable 2016 review, pmid:26853923, and this should not be "undercut" with less reliable sources. In essence, the evidence of effect is thought to be fairly weak because of weaknesses in the underlying data. pmid:33548097 is even more recent and probably pertinent. The material from the WHO was not about veganism so its inclusion, yes, was WP:OR. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are hardly any meta-analysis or reviews on cancer and vegan diets. There is this [3] but it does not mention veganism so that would be original research. This also mentions vegans have a lower incidence of prostate cancer but that is only a single comment in the review [4] but it is quite clear to me this review needs to go on the article. The review is not on any other Wikipedia articles yet either. It might be worth using this source for various deficiencies on the vegan diet it notes "Veganism is also associated with low intake of vitamins B2, Niacin (B3), B12, D, iodine, zinc, calcium, potassium, selenium. Vitamin B12 intake among vegans is significantly lower (0.24–0.49 μg, recommendations are 2.4 μg) and calcium intake in the majority of vegans was below recommendations (750 mg/d). Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added some recent AICR stuff, which mentions the prostate cancer association. Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good, thanks very much for looking it up. You seem to be right that no MEDRS paper has yet mentioned vegans separately from vegetarians when discussing red meat and cancer. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 22:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs updating with some more recent reviews from 2020 and 2021. We now have them. Here are some others I found. On cardiometabolic risk factors [5], inflammatory biomarkers [6], cardiovascular disease [7]. I might spend some time trying to update this article when I have finished other stuff I am working on or go ahead and add these if you think they are on topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexisrwatkins. Peer reviewers: Alexisrwatkins.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AvaDalessio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PresleyS123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ftaylor4 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC) To this article, I added the results of my research study related to how vegan and vegetarian diets affect pregnancy or mothers and babies whilst pregnant. As well as how or why it is important to the article as well as its importance in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresleyS123 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Choline

[edit]

This section is using very weak sourcing, for example [8] this article by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and another piece from Sky News should be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did find mentioning the media buzz around choline quite helpful and would not want so see it completely removed. I have added the Euronews article (Euronews being public broadcast and a good source) a while ago to make sure it sticks. Sky and PCRM can be removed. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look around there is not a lot of research on choline in relation to vegan diets, I could only find two primary papers that mention the topic but we can't use these on Wikipedia, example [9]. There is a review here [10] but it only mentions vegetarian diets but it might be worth citing because it notes the limited evidence we have on the topic. There is no RDI but it has been suggested that 550 mg is an adequate daily intake for men [11]. I doubt most people are meeting 550mg unless they are loading up on beef liver, cod, salmon or chicken breasts on a daily basis. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AI given by the ODS has been derived as follows:
For adults, the AI for choline was set at 550 mg/day for men and 425 mg/day for women. These values were based on the amount (7 mg/kg/day) that prevented hepatic alteration in men, defined as elevated alanine aminotransferase concentration in serum [7], and reference body weights of 76 kg and 59 kg for men and women, respectively [8]. It should be noted that the small depletion-repletion study used to derive these values was conducted only in men and did not provide information on whether less choline would be effective, as researchers only studied one dose [7]. From this, the AIs for children and adolescents were extrapolated
The researchers of the original study used a study design with only two amounts of choline: zero or 500mg per day. And yeah, zero wasn't enough and the participants got liver damage. 500mg was enough. That's how the AI was born. Thus, it seems very likely that the RDI (if ever established) lies well below 500mg.
Do you think this little science history would be a good addition to the Choline article? I think the sources would allow for that (even though one paper above is from Nutrients, I think for the statement it makes, the source can be used.) CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The best paper I have seen to date on vegan diets and nutrition is this systematic review, it should be added to the article [12], it gives a very balanced review. It does not mention anything about choline. There is hardly anything in the medical literature about choline deficiency or inadequacy in relation to vegan diets. I agree 500mg is too high, looks like a weak study. It is probably worth expanding the choline article with any history. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to reviews on vegan nutrients and children, this is the best review to date [13]. We can use this to expand the article section "Pregnancy, infants and children". Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the weak sources. I added some history of how the AI has been derived to Choline. I deleted the discussion of RDI/AI from this article as it's redundant and probably best to read the article Choline to get the whole picture. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Position of paediatric associations

[edit]

I have expanded this section with position papers from France, Germany and Italy. The Argentine Society of Pediatrics have issued a position paper [14] and there are recommendations from Chile [15]. If one goes looking some other countries can probably be found but they are probably not relevant to this English speaking Wikipedia. We already cover Canada. But as the section already contains a lot of information it's probably not worth making it too big. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When reading the European statements (and using translation tools) one has to take care to get an exact understanding of what they are saying.
For example, the German Society for Nutrition does not claim that there are any nutrients that cannot be obtained from supplements and a plant-based diet. Rather, what they are saying is that people are generally not well disciplined to take supplements, eat whole grains and veggies and that for this lack of discipline they do not recommend to leave out nutrient-dense foods like meat and cheese. So their arguments are not based on nutritional science but also blend in some sociological arguments.
In a way, this is in line with the general difference between the anglosphere and continental Europe, where in the first places more trust in the individual while the second does not trust the individual to be able to deal with "too much freedom".
If I read the Italian position correctly they are making a similar argument. I have rephrased the paragraph to make this two-step argument more clear. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the consensus from paediatric associations is that if a vegan diet is to be taken up by pregnant women and infants then it needs to be done either under strict medical supervision or dietetic supervision, now what does that mean? It means hiring a professional paediatrician or dietitian and seeking regular dietary advice. Only very wealthy people will be able to afford this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iron

[edit]

This systematic review [16] looked at vegetarians and iron and appears to be the only systematic review on iron intake and vegetarians. I do not have full access but the review is cited in another review [17] as "individuals adhering to a vegetarian or vegan diet are more prone to lower iron stores which may increase the risk of iron deficiency anaemia", so it must include studies on vegans. If anyone has full access we can add the source if there is confirmation about iron intake and vegans. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the paper. It also discusses the potential benefits of lower iron stores. CarlFromVienna (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to verify the 14mg/33mg. The source given in the article is not the primary source. I don't have the book, and could not look up footnote #18, but I think it's this. If its the 2001 Dietary Reference Intakes, the paragraph there reads as follows:
As previously discussed, iron is more bioavailable from meat than from plant-derived foods. Meat and fish also enhance the absorption of nonheme iron. Therefore, nonheme iron absorption is lower for those consuming vegetarian diets than for those eating non-vegetarian diets (Hunt and Roughead, 1999). Serum ferritin concentrations have been observed to be markedly lower in vegetarian men, women, and children than in those consuming a nonvegetarian diet (Alexander et al., 1994; Dwyer et al., 1982; Shaw et al., 1995). For these reasons, individuals who typically consume vegetarian diets may have difficulty consuming adequate intakes of bioavailable iron to meet the EAR. Cook and coworkers (1991) compared iron bioavailability from single meals with that of a diet consumed over a 2-week period. There was a 4.4-fold difference between maximally enhancing and maximally inhibiting single meals, but the difference was only two-fold when measured over the 2-week period. It is therefore estimated that the bioavailability of iron from a vegetarian diet is approximately 10 percent, rather than the 18 percent from a mixed Western diet. Hence the requirement for iron is 1.8 times higher for vegetarians. It is important to emphasize that lower bioavailability diets (approaching 5 percent overall absorption) may be encountered with very strict vegetarianism and in some developing countries where access to a variety of foods is limited.
Meaning the 33mg and 14mg given would be based on a single study over 2 weeks. If this is indeed the only source for the 33mg/14mg claim, I would not include it in the article as it has not been picked up by any nutritional society as a recommendation for vegan/vegetarian diets and would be WP:UNDUE. I you look at how the 2001 document is structured it is even not an official recommendation (these are bold text in separate paragraphs. The 14mg/33mg are not even given as values. It seems to me that the factor of 1.8 is simply an estimate and that Mangels blew it totally out of proportion in their book. After that it has never been heard of again -- except here. CarlFromVienna (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the first footnote citing Mangels confirms that the primary source is the 2001 Dietary Reference Intakes. As explained above this is neither an official RDA nor was it adopted by other nutritional organizations. I will therefor delete these values from the article. There are probably a lot more of moderate recommendations to eat a little more iron than on an omnivorous diet, and we should cite these instead. CarlFromVienna (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the 2001 Dietary Reference Intakes are clearly outdated and there is cherry picking on this topic, many of the studies are only a few weeks, I don't have access to the Mangels book either. I see you added the systematic review, you have done a good job there I would just leave it at that. They need to do more studies on iron and vegan diets, in about 5-10 years we will have more results. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc

[edit]

While I am sceptical about the iron (see talk above) I noticed that zinc is missing. I have added a section on zinc based on the reference values of the German Nutrition Society. I think it should be padded with some context by societies form the English-speaking world. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's mention of zinc [18] in the 2021 systematic review. In the section on zinc, the conclusion was "In general, vegan diets are more likely to contain inadequate amounts of serum zinc [5]. Similarly, vegans have shown the lowest zinc intake when compared to groups with different dietary habits". The only other review that has been published on zinc was this review from 2013 [19] which looked mostly at vegetarians. Zinc stays in the body for about 25 hours, it doesn't have a long storage like some of other nutrients. In 2012 it was estimated that 17.3% of the world’s population is at risk of inadequate zinc intake [20]. That figure is probably closer to 20% now. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added the 2021 review. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protein

[edit]

According to the Netherlands Nutrition Centre, the recommended amount of protein required on a vegan diet is 1.3 times higher [21]. Is there any other sources on this? The reference they give was in Dutch and I have not been able to locate it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing original research

[edit]

I have expanded the positions of dietetic and government associations section and added the position of paediatric associations. I have made sure all the sourcing is accurate to my own edits. Unfortunately some content that was added on 3 April 2021 contains original research [22] which was never checked. Unfortunately this information has remained on the article for 2 years. The content I am talking about is a list of organizations listed that recognize "a well-planned vegan diet as viable for any age". Yes some of these do indeed support this, but some organizations were added that have not stated that. So it is original research that has to be removed.

Let me go through some of these links.

  • The New Zealand Ministry of Health [23], the link provided does not mention a vegan diet is viable for any age. It does not mention ages.
  • The British National Health Service [24]. There is is no mention of ages on this link apart from claiming the "Eatwell Guide" is not suitable for children aged 0-2. This is original research. I have removed this link and updated it with a better source from the NHS which does indeed support the claim that a well-planned vegan diet is viable for any age [25].
  • British Nutrition Foundation [26]. No mention of ages on the link. I have since found this link and added it [27] so the BNF does support well-planned vegan diets for any age but the original link cited did not support that.
  • United States Department of Agriculture [28]. No mention of ages. Not much information about vegan diets.
  • Dietitians Association of Australia [29]. No mention of ages. Again this is a case of original research.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Mayo Clinic [30], Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada [31], Canadian Pediatric Society [32] all support a well-planned vegan diet for any age so those were accurate however 5 references I cited above all failed to support the statement. This is a bad case of original research and not fact checking sources. This page needs to be accurate so I am making the corrections. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Council of Ministers

[edit]

The Nordic Council of Ministers (NHMRC) who published the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012 have stated that "Vegan, lacto-vegetarian and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets should be able to satisfy the nutrient needs of infants, children, and adolescents and promote normal growth if they are appropriately planned, but vegan diets always need to be supplemented with vitamin B12 and vitamin D." [33]. However, the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023 which has just been published does not mention age groups in relation to vegan diets [34]. Because the new recommendations have been published there is no need to cite the 2012 recommendations. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian Paediatric Society

[edit]

The Slovenian Paediatric Society do not support vegan diets for pregnant women and infants, this is clarified in this paper "In line with the proven effects of vegetarian and vegan diets on health and development, the Slovenian Paediatric Society advises against the use of such diets in pregnant and lactating women, newborns, infants, children, and adolescents [35]. The paper itself also links to another paper which says "Slovenian guidelines do not recommend strictly vegetarian or vegan-nutrition for children." [36] Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State of Israel Ministry of Defence

[edit]

The article by the State of Israel Ministry of Defence [37] does not claim that "vegan diets can provide all dietary requirements in infancy", anyone can read the article and see no wording like that appears on the article therefore this edit is WP:OR [38] and should be removed.

The source says "In vegan families which avoid all animal-derived foods, it is advisable to consult with a nutritional expert or dietitian in order to assess the mother’s food consumption and consider referral for blood tests." Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vegan_nutrition/Archive_1&oldid=1235451987"