This introduces you to new ingredients and recipes without adding immediate restrictions to your diet and life.

Even if you never go full vegetarian, just cutting back on meat consumption still has an effect.

Aside from some devout paleo people, I've never known a single omnivore who doesn't routinely have meatless meals, without even giving it much thought. Having meat with every dinner seems rather obsessive to me, or (in my biased view) reflective or someone who isn't very creative with their diet. There are so many awesome foods out there for which meat is a minor, optional detail. I suppose some people always find a way to insert some meat, even when it adds nothing to the meal as a whole.

Vegan is a bit challenging for nutrition because things like zinc are fairly hard to get. Although the UI is fairly poor, I recommend using nut [0] to help you calculate how you are doing. I haven't actually seen anything else even close for a nutrient calculator (which is strange since you would think it would be an obvious piece of software for people to write).

Also take this advice from the Vegan society on vitamin B12 [1]. There is a lot of dangerous information out there, so be careful.

I really enjoyed being vegan. Unlike many vegans, I was not an ethical vegan. I just like eating that way. I actually became vegetarian to save money when I was young and poor (meat or beer was an easy equation for me to solve). After a while, I just found that the foods I enjoyed the most and that made me feel the best were vegan. YMMV :-D

No reason to go crazy at first, though. Just start cooking vegan meals. If you become vegan full time, you'll be cooking a lot in most countries, so be prepared for it.

[0] http://nut.sourceforge.net/ [1] https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/...

https://medium.com/@manibatra23/2016-a-reflection-e80378393f...

https://medium.com/@manibatra23/2016-a-reflection-diet-30c15...

You do, but as your gut bacteria changes you sort of stop craving meat so much and start craving the new foods you've been eating.

FWIW, plant-based complete protein groups are fairly inexpensive and easy to come by.

My diet is primarily: Rice, beans, tofu, mushrooms, and various greens. I've never really been a salad person, and even as a vegetarian that's still generally true.

I know of local farms where getting above average cabbages, from little seed to the nice looking one on the market stands, takes little more than one month, thanks to the chemicals they get.

It is nothing more than "I feel good" kind of thing.

This post lacks common sense. Processing and feeding animals uses far more resources than processing crops (especially since crops are often processed in order to feed animals...).

"The efficiency with which various animals convert grain into protein varies widely. With cattle in feedlots, it takes roughly 7 kilograms of grain to produce a 1-kilogram gain in live weight. For pork, the figure is close to 4 kilograms of grain per kilogram of weight gain, for poultry it is just over 2, and for herbivorous species of farmed fish (such as carp, tilapia, and catfish), it is less than 2. As the market shifts production to the more grain-efficient products, it raises the productivity of both land and water."

http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb2/pb2ch9_ss4

> It is nothing more than "I feel good" kind of thing.

Seems like you would deny reality in order to continue to 'feel good' about eating meat.

However, the fish, chicken, pork, or beef are not. I can eat them as I choose.

Whether it is worth the environmental impact is a different issue. Interestingly, googling 'vegetarian diabetic diet' suggests that a vegetarian diet may be healthier for diabetic people:

"Vegetarianism excludes high-calorie foods and animal products laden with saturated fats. It instead concentrates on foods that give necessary minerals and vitamins that help give diabetics a better chance of blood glucose control."

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/vegetarian-diet.html

1. Vegetarianism is not an end-all-be-all

2. Some people fare very badly on many vegetables. Potatoes, grains, rice, and those sort of things are effectively slow poisons for Diabetics.

3. No, you will not shame or embarrass us into not eating meat. I'd personally consider vat grown meat. We're not there yet.

2. Hmm, I keep reading things saying that vegetarian diets can be healthy for people with diabetes. Even on the official American Diabetes association website [1]. But if it truly isn't then it is a special case.

3. I agree that shame and embarrassment is not a good way to persuade people. However, there are lots of genuinely good things about a vegetarian diet that people might want to think about.

[1] http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals... - "A vegetarian diet is a healthy option, even if you have diabetes. Research supports that following this type of diet can help prevent and manage diabetes. In fact, research on vegan diets has found that carbohydrate and calorie restrictions were not necessary and still promoted weight loss and lowered participants.

"Vegan diets are naturally higher in fiber, much lower in saturated fat, and cholesterol-free when compared to a traditional American diet. The high fiber in this diet may help you feel full for a longer time after eating and may help you eat less over all. When fiber intake is greater than 50 grams per day on a vegan diet, it may help lower blood glucose levels.

"This diet also tends to cost less. Meat, poultry, and fish are usually the most expensive foods we eat."

I'll give you good for the environment. I know animal protein costs more resource than plants do. Good for individuals? Nope. You're going to have to defend that claim.

2. Hmm, I keep reading things saying that vegetarian diets can be healthy for people with diabetes. Even on the official American Diabetes association website [1]. But if it truly isn't then it is a special case.

You undoubtedly triggered my disdain and hatred for the American Diabetes Association. It is my opinion, backed by my own personal data as fact, that they are peddling false medical science.

ADA claims that a diabetic can have 60g carbs per meal. Sure. And I'm sure they say testing 1x a day is fine as well. Instead, if you test regularly around the day, you'll find that certain foods cause significant blood-sugar issues. For me, harder squashes, potatoes, carrots all cause problems. I know the foods that cause spikes for me. I avoid them, or eat them very sparingly to level out any spikes.

Beer. Same. You're told by doctors that Guinness is fine. 7.5g carbs. And the docs never say to graph your blood sugar from before first sip to end. You can see your own results.

In the end, a diet high in fiber (types of carbohydrates that cannot be easily digested, and are good for many things), fats, and proteins are the healthiest for us diabetics. I only have my blood sugar reports to point to.

Yet, ADA recommends way too many carbs, and more drugs. Metformin is great... until it doesn't work 8-10 years later. Is it resistance, or bad eating that makes metformin not usable? Who knows. So I'm doing both. Taking Metformin when I know I cannot easily control my food, and eat very low carbs/day. I've already lost 80 lbs, and feel better than I have in years (well, not not, caught a cold at work, sigh).

And per note, I ALSO eat vegetables. I won't eat potatoes, certain squashes, and other high starch veggies. I also limit how much sugar containing veggies to my personal limits (which amounts to no higher than 140mg/dL glucose - the point of neurological damage).

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Closing the eyes to the vegetables industrialization is what I meant by feeling good.

There's an enormous difference between eating grains directly and using them to grow animals which eventually become meat. Industrial meat production has a greater negative environmental impact than agriculture.

But yes, the relevance of suffering seems proportional to relatedness with the sufferer. Or maybe the ability to identify with the sufferer, based on perceived intelligence and self-awareness.

It's also not so black or white. Does a cow have greater "capacity for suffering" than an oyster? Does this have ethical consequences? I think it does.

And yes, maybe oysters are closer to plants than cows, in that regard.

But it's not just about suffering. It's about the morality of killing other lifeforms. Personally, I'm OK with it. I'll be eaten after I die. Indeed, I'm always under attack from bacteria, yeast, molds, etc. But I won't eat anything that I wouldn't kill myself.

Have you actually, personally, killed a cow, chicken, or pig?

Granted, the fauna in question aren't living on the farm, but that's a distinction without a difference.