[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
[2] https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltex...
This is such a mainstream statement that it seems to me entirely reasonable to omit a source. You can find dozens of them by looking up "vegetarianism" on wikipedia and navigating to the "health effects" section.
It also makes me believe less in the statements, since there is not apparently any sources that can be used to back the statements up.
Only in circles where alternative medicine is practiced, health-advice taken from unscholared internet-blogs and science is generally shunned.
This very extreme claim certainly needs a source to have any sort of credibility.
More than a third of East Asians have a deficiency in one of the enzymes involved in the breakdown of alcohol (aldehyde dehydrogenase). They cannot properly metabolize it.
Inuits have mutations in genes that code for enzymes that desaturate carbon-carbon bonds in fatty acids. This means they can handle diets that are very high in certain types of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids.
A mutation of the melanocortin-4-receptor (MC4R) leads to a markedly increased preference for high fat, but a significantly reduced preference for high sucrose food.
So what I'm saying is that blanket statements like "well if I/those guys can do it then everybody should be able to" have no real value. Diets are strongly influenced by and relying on genetics. Since we don't have the same genes we won't handle the same diet in the same way. Linking to statements that have since been withdrawn due to omissions also doesn't help.
Edit. Huh... getting downvoted for saying diet and genetics go hand in hand, with evidence that hasn't been retracted. If anybody was wondering why some people are never taken seriously, it's because they reject reality thinking this will change it.
Not just genetics, but a lifetime of bacterial and other environmental exposures that defines your microbiome, which is obviously essential to processing all food. An environment with a long history of vegetarians will be well suited to vegetarians. Not so much if that hasn't been the case.
> appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets
Most people's diets are not "appropriately" planned because most people never actually consult a nutritionist. This means most of those diets miss their mark and since that diet narrows the alternatives it's far easier to lose those benefits.
And can't see anything about any disbenefits of introducing animal products in that diet in "appropriately planned" quantities. Would introducing certain amounts of animal products in your diet affect in in any direction? So would adding a moderate amount of fish in your vegad diet sabotge or improve it? Or no difference?
Completely false. Also, unscholared isn't a word
https://www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=unscholared&s=t
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unscholared
https://www.onelook.com/?w=unscholared&ls=a
>This very extreme claim
It isn't
I think you will have to back that statement up if you want to be taken seriously. I for one am certainly not going to stop eating fish and meat, I have been a vegetarian for over a year and I did not fancy it.