It is absolutely not "very hard." It is challenging at first because like anything else, the startup costs of new habit formation can be high. But tofu, soy milk, seitan, tempeh, lentils, and many other plant protein sources are highly available and easy to cook with once you try. Been at it for a few years myself and at this point, it's extremely easy. I take protein shakes when working out, just like I did when I ate animal products.

Everyone is different, but if you weren't actually able to hit protein macros then I think that's a skill that isn't too hard to improve for most people (if they have a decent reason for wanting to go vegan in the first place).

I’ve been vegan for 14 years. Protein is not very very hard, unless you have multiple dietary restrictions on top of plant based. Which, if I can be frank, tend to be self imposed when people complain about this to me after dabbling in plant based.

Correlation is not causation, especially in a sample of 1, the plural of anecdote is not data etc etc. Protein is easy, just eat some beans and rice, tofu, tempeh etc. You can't just take the diet you had before and subtract things and expect it to work, you have to substitute. Make sure to get B12, D and maybe omega 3 and creatine either as supplements or fortified in foods, and get your levels checked every year or so.

I've been vegan for 15+ years, and I'm willing to say there are zero health benefits over a healthy omnivorous diet. The people who find one are misattributing it. It's not that vegan is healthier, just that what they were doing before was decidedly unhealthy. For a lot of people going vegan is the first time they actually think about what they eat, read labels etc, which is where most of the benefit comes from.

I am vegan except for fish, and find it works really well. Sardines are awesome!

That book is highly-biased in favor of veganism. Greger is very controversial. Any mention of him ought to also acknowledge this. Also, he wears a lab coat but doesn't see patients, which is weird AF.

> When you say they should have supplemented fiber, you’re also implying they should have had less meat

Why? This is a non-sequitur. As are the other assertions in my opinion. You can have meat based diets rich in fibre (e.g. the mediterranean diet), and you can have vegan diets completely devoid of them (e.g. living off McDonalds plantburgers for the rest of your life).

The problem is this conflating of veganism, which at its heart is an ethical movement, as a nutritional one. So designing studies that intentionally blur this line isn't doing anyone no favours.

If I see a study comparing vegan junkfood against the mediterranean diet where the vegan diet still comes on top, I'd change my tune. But the reverse scenario, i.e. comparing meat-based diets of a nature that most people would intuitively consider unhealthy anyway (i.e. not necessarily because of the meat) against vegan diets which most people would intuitively consider healthy anyway (i.e. not necessarily because of the veganism) provides zero useful evidence.

And if I were to make a dietary choice for ethical reasons, I would much more appreciate insights coming from impartial science over an echo chamber, academic or otherwise.

Always some excuse to look down on other people.

None needed.

always some excuse to avoid putting the blame on the corporations, unchecked O&G