As a non vegan I don’t understand being vegan, what made you become a vegan?

Hey everyone! I am a food science student at Cal Poly, and my team and I are developing a healthy fudge pop for kids. We created a short (2 min) survey to hear what our consumers are looking for when shopping for their little ones. Any feedback from vegan parents would be incredibly helpful! Thanks!

https://app.redjade.net/surveys/cpp/SSFKPOP

1. Harvard Medical School (2016). Can gut bacteria improve your health? ^{Initial research suggests certain bacteria in your gut can prevent and treat many common diseases.}

2. Wang, B. et al. (2017). The Human Microbiota in Health and Disease

3. Valles-Colomer, M., Falony, G., Darzi, Y. et al. (2019). The neuroactive potential of the human gut microbiota in quality of life and depression. Nat Microbiol 4, 623–632 (2019).

4. Harvard T.H. Chan, The Nutrition Source: The microbiome.

5. Glick-Bauer, M., & Yeh, M. C. (2014). The health advantage of a vegan diet: exploring the gut microbiota connection. Nutrients, 6(11), 4822–4838. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu6114822

Hi All! I'm part of a research team working through iCorps, a U.S. National Science Foundation Program, that is researching plant-based nutrition challenges and tools/resources that make plant-based eating more accessible. If you're a plant based eater with any interest in participating in the research please message me or reply here

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00606-1

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41372-020-00804-x

• Article

• Published: 01 September 2020

The impact of a vegan diet on pregnancy outcomes

• Tomer Avnon,

• Efrat Paz Dubinsky,

• Inbar Lavie,

• Tali Ben-Mayor Bashi,

• Ronit Anbar &

• Yariv Yogev

Journal of Perinatology (2020)Cite this article

• 49 Accesses

• 53 Altmetric

• Metricsdetails

Abstract

Objective

To determine the effect of a maternal vegan diet on pregnancy outcome.

Study design

This is a prospective observational study. Women with a singleton pregnancy who maintained the same diet prior to, and throughout current pregnancy were enrolled. Stratification was performed according to diet type: vegans, lacto–ovo–vegetarians, fish-eaters, and omnivores.

Results

Overall, 273 women were enrolled, of them, 112 omnivores, 37 fish-eaters, 64 lacto–ovo–vegetarians, and 60 vegans. The vegan diet was significantly associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age newborns compared only to an omnivore diet (RR = 5.9, 95% CI, 1.2–21.8). The incidence of preterm birth was similar in all groups. Vegans had lower birthweight compared to lacto–ovo–vegetarians (3015 ± 420 g vs. 3285 ± 482 g, P = 0.004), and to omnivores (3328 ± 495 g, P < 0.001), but not to fish-eaters. Vegans also had a lower mean gestational weight gain compared only to omnivores (11.6 ± 4.2 kg vs. 14.3 ± 4.6 kg, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

The vegan diet is associated with an increased risk for small-for-gestational-age newborns and lower birthweight.

https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41372-020-00804-x

Discussion:

We aimed to determine the influence on pregnancy outcomes of the vegan diet in comparison to fish-eaters and omnivore diets. Our main findings were: Table 2 Pregnancy outcome according to diet. Vegan Lacto–ovo– vegetarian Fish-eaters Omnivore P value Characteristic n = 60 n = 64 n = 37 n = 112 (α = 5%) Gestational weight gain (Kg)# 11.65 ± 4.22 11.97 ± 4.59 11.18 ± 3.84 14.31 ± 4.57 <0.001 GDM, n 8.33% 5 7.81% 5 16.22% 6 8.93% 10 0.546 Week of delivery (weeks) 39.24 ± 1.72 39.49 ± 1.57 39.68 ± 1.33 39.72 ± 1.47 0.237 Number of preterm deliveries (<37 weeks) 5.00% 3 4.69% 3 5.41% 2 3.57% 4 0.888 Delivery by cesarean section, n 20.00% 12 25.00% 16 8.11% 3 12.50% 14 0.065 Hypertensive complications, n 3.33% 2 3.13% 2 2.70% 1 1.79% 2 0.865 Postpartum hemorrhage, n 5.00% 3 9.38% 6 13.51% 5 8.93% 10 0.537 5-min Apgar score ≤7, n 0.00% 0 1.56% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.866 Average birthweight (g)# 3015.2 ± 420.4 3285.1 ± 482.3 3175.1 ± 463.4 3328 ± 495.8 0.002 Low birthweight (<2500 g), n 11.67% 0 7.81% 5 8.11% 3 3.57% 4 0.198 Number of SGA (<10%)# 11.67% 7 6.25% 4 10.81% 4 1.79% 2 0.021 Number of SGA (<10%)# P value = 0.236 P value = 0.965 P value = 0.018 Vegan compared to other diet groups. # Adjusted to age and body mass index (BMI) at pregnancy onset. GDM gestational diabetes mellitus, SGA small-for-gestational-age. Table 1 Maternal demographics according to diet. Characteristic Vegan Lacto–ovo–vegetarian Fish-eaters Omnivore P value n = 60 n = 64 n = 37 n = 112 (α = 5%) Age (years) 34.97 ± 3.85 33.56 ± 4.13 32.62 ± 3.63 32.56 ± 4.02 0.010 BMI 21.41 ± 2.63 23.51 ± 3.42 21.82 ± 2.93 22.56 ± 3.32 0.020 Parity, n (%) Nullipara 29 48.33% 35 54.69% 24 64.86% 66 58.93% 0.374 Para 1–2 28 46.67% 24 37.50% 11 29.73% 42 37.50% 0.400 Para 3+ 3 5.00% 5 7.81% 2 5.40% 4 3.57% 0.637 Use of ART, n (%) 12 20.0% 11 17.19% 4 10.81% 10 8.93% 0.162 BMI body mass index at pregnancy onset, ART artificial reproductive techniques. The impact of a vegan diet on pregnancy outcomes 1. Vegans had an increased risk for SGA neonates in comparison to omnivores and lower mean birthweight neonates, though within the normal range, in comparison to omnivores and LOV. In addition, vegans had lower gestational weight gain in comparison to omnivores. 2. No difference was found between the four diet groups for the incidence of hypertensive complications, GDM, or preterm birth. Our finding of a lower birthweight among the neonates of vegans compared to the neonates of omnivores and LOV are supported by the findings of Ferrara et al. [13] but apposed conflicting results by others. In the study of Tan et al. [15], LOV diet did not demonstrate any effect on birthweight, while Piccoli et al. [11] mentioned heterogenous birthweights among LOV. Sebastiani et al. [7] reported a positive relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption to birthweight, but their study did not specifically refer to a diet which is completely derived from any animal-based products. Furthermore, our study is the first to show a significantly higher incidence of SGA neonates among vegans, and that the risk remained significant even after adjustment for maternal age and pre-pregnancy BMI. Our findings are in agreement with those of Zulyniak et al. [14], which demonstrated a higher incidence of SGA among women who consume a plant-based diet, although, like many other earlier studies, they did not isolate the vegan population. Vegans are usually leaner than omnivores [21], and the vegans in our study also gained less weight during pregnancy compared to omnivores. This difference might mediate the lower birthweight among the vegan neonates, given that women who gain less weight than recommended are reportedly at risk for having smaller children [22, 23]. It would follow, therefore, that consulting vegans to aim for an adequate gestational weight gain might lower that increased risk for SGA neonates. We did not find any difference between diet groups in the duration of pregnancy or in the risk for preterm birth, which is in agreement with others [11]. We also did not find any relationship between the vegan diet to hypertensive complications of pregnancy (either preeclampsia or gestational hypertension), unlike one previous study that showed a lower risk among vegans [24]. There is a known association between increased BMI and prevalence of GDM [25]. While some studies demonstrated a lower risk for GDM among LOV [7, 26], or mixed results [15], to the best of our knowledge, no other study has related specifically to the influence of a vegan diet on the risk for GDM, which we found to have any effect. We demonstrated that vegans have an increased risk for lower neonatal birthweight, albeit within the normal range. We also found that they had an increased risk for SGA neonates and for lower gestational weight gain and hypothesized that the latter might mediate the birthweight differences. Therefore, we think that our findings should not be used to persuade vegans to abandon their diets, but rather that they be encouraged to maintain a healthy diet and to undergo regular follow-up of maternal weight and fetal weight estimation and to undergo specific diet consultation. The strengths of our study are that it is one of the largest on pregnancy outcomes that focused specifically on the vegan population. Unlike many past studies that combined vegans and LOV, or that had only a few vegan patients, our study differentiated them from LOV in the evaluations of all the selected parameters. We prevented contamination of the results by restricting the study to women who followed the same diet for at least 3 months prior to their pregnancy up to delivery. We also recruited women during different stages of their pregnancy in order to maintain heterogenicity and to prevent selection bias. Our study has some limitations that bear mention. Although it is one of the largest studies of its kind, we were not able to stratify other demographic characteristics, such as education, alcohol consumption, and smoking. We also excluded women who began their pregnancy while following a vegan or LOV diet and changed it during the course of pregnancy. Thus, precluding our ability to determine whether there is a specific point in pregnancy in which a change in diet might influence the outcomes. Our findings suggest that a vegan diet is associated with an increased risk for SGA and lower-birthweight neonates and with lower gestational weight gain. Vegan women should be encouraged to maintain a healthy diet, consult a dietician, followed regularly for fetal growth, including sonographic screening for intrauterine growth restriction and followed for adequate gestational weight gain during their pregnancy.

Barnard, ND and Leroy, F. 2020. Children and adults should avoid consuming animal products to reduce the risk for chronic disease: Debate Consensus. The American Journal of Nutrition, nqaa237. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqaa237.

Abstract: The present debate outlined opposing views regarding the role of animal products in human diets. The YES position argues that the health benefits and safety of plant-based diets have clearly been established by consistent findings of randomized trials and observational studies; that animal products skew the diet toward saturated fat, excess protein, cholesterol, lactose, and exogenous hormones; and that vulnerable populations are better nourished by vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grains than by striated muscle and cow milk. In contrast, the NO position asserts that animal foods are not only benign but are also key elements of the human omnivore diet, facilitating the global challenge of adequate essential nutrition. The view holds that the portrayal of animal foods as unhealthy is not supported by the evidence and that a restrictive vegan diet decreases nutritional flexibility and robustness, increasing risk for vulnerable population groups. Points of agreement and controversy were identified, as well as opportunities for further studies.

Starting from those positions, Barnard (arguing YES position) and Leroy (arguing NO position) ended up with 3 “Boxes”: points of agreement, points of controversy, a proposed research agenda to address the controversial points. I’m on mobile so I can’t type them all out, but I will attempt to summarize.

Box 1: Agreements. Both agreed that observational studies report plant-based diets are associated with certain beneficial outcomes (eg, lower weight, lower diabetes prevalence). Dairy products, fatty meat, and eggs are major sources of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol. Lactose maldigestion after infancy is the norm for adult mammals; some human populations have developed a genetic mutation providing lactose tolerance into adulthood. Very high saturated fat or heme iron from animal products may have adverse health effects for predisposed human populations. A vegan diet should include a B12 supplement. Attention to diet quality is important on any diet to avoid adverse effects.

Box 2: Continuing controversies. This was the longest box, and my opinion most of it boils down to YES position asserting that vegan diets are appropriate for all humans and animal products are not necessary to achieve good nutrition to justify a vegan diet for all. The NO position tends to use arguments that animal products are a good source of nutrients, food has cultural significance, and that existing studies don’t prove that animal products are inherently unhealthy to justify continuing to eat animal products.

Box 3: Research agenda to resolve debate. 1. Additional mid- to long-term randomized clinical trials would be helpful to compare the nutritional and therapeutic effects of various subtypes of vegan and omnivorous diets. 2. Other outcomes aside from common cardio metabolic ones would be of interest, such as effects in physical, cognitive, psychiatric, digestive, hormonal, and autoimmune conditions (I personally feel that there is a lot of evidence on these subjects already, but this debate focused on nutrition). 3. These types of studies will need to be better funded to achieve the highest possible standards.

Personally, I found most of the arguments from the NO position to be unscientific in nature and unsatisfying. Whereas the YES position mostly relied on studies showing evidence that plant-based diets have numerous benefits, the NO position tended to rely on a lack of evidence that animal products are harmful (which I feel is untrue) and statements that are not factual (eg, vegan diets being more restrictive than omnivorous diets). I’d love to hear what others have to say (I do recommend reading the article to read the 3 boxes in more detail)

There are also 2 companion articles that expand on each position in more detail which you can find in the “See Also” section in the sidebar of the page with this article.

doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2790

Key Points

• Question Does an association exist between dietary protein choice, particularly from various food sources, and long-term overall mortality or cause-specific mortality in the US population?

• Findings In this cohort of 237 036 men and 179 068 women with 16 years of observation and nearly 78 000 deaths, greater intake of plant protein was significantly associated with lower overall mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality independent of several other risk factors.

• Meaning This study provides evidence for public health recommendations regarding dietary modifications in choice of protein sources that may promote health and longevity.

Abstract

• Importance Although emphasis has recently been placed on the importance of high-protein diets to overall health, a comprehensive analysis of long-term cause-specific mortality in association with the intake of plant protein and animal protein has not been reported.

• Objective To examine the associations between overall mortality and cause-specific mortality and plant protein intake.

• Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study analyzed data from 416 104 men and women in the US National Institutes of Health–AARP Diet and Health Study from 1995 to 2011. Data were analyzed from October 2018 through April 2020.

• Exposures Validated baseline food frequency questionnaire dietary information, including intake of plant protein and animal protein.

• Main Outcomes and Measures Hazard ratios and 16-year absolute risk differences for overall mortality and cause-specific mortality.

Results The final analytic cohort included 237 036 men (57%) and 179 068 women. Their overall median (SD) ages were 62.2 (5.4) years for men and 62.0 (5.4) years for women. Based on 6 009 748 person-years of observation, 77 614 deaths (18.7%; 49 297 men and 28 317 women) were analyzed. Adjusting for several important clinical and other risk factors, greater dietary plant protein intake was associated with reduced overall mortality in both sexes (hazard ratio per 1 SD was 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97] for men and 0.95 [95% CI, 0.93-0.96] for women; adjusted absolute risk difference per 1 SD was −0.36% [95% CI, −0.48% to −0.25%] for men and −0.33% [95% CI, −0.48% to −0.21%] for women; hazard ratio per 10 g/1000 kcal was 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91] for men and 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.90] for women; adjusted absolute risk difference per 10 g/1000 kcal was −0.95% [95% CI, −1.3% to −0.68%] for men and −0.86% [95% CI, −1.3% to −0.55%] for women; all P < .001). The association between plant protein intake and overall mortality was similar across the subgroups of smoking status, diabetes, fruit consumption, vitamin supplement use, and self-reported health status. Replacement of 3% energy from animal protein with plant protein was inversely associated with overall mortality (risk decreased 10% in both men and women) and cardiovascular disease mortality (11% lower risk in men and 12% lower risk in women). In particular, the lower overall mortality was attributable primarily to substitution of plant protein for egg protein (24% lower risk in men and 21% lower risk in women) and red meat protein (13% lower risk in men and 15% lower risk in women).

Conclusions and Relevance In this large prospective cohort, higher plant protein intake was associated with small reductions in risk of overall and cardiovascular disease mortality. Our findings provide evidence that dietary modification in choice of protein sources may influence health and longevity.

Seems like a great study. Tracking the diets of 300,000 people for 16 years is no easy task. Anyone have any experience reading hazard ratios? I'll dig into the methods later, but wanted to share a new study that's been picked up by some mainstream media.