Home / N. Ex-vegans: why I gave up / Part IND
"I stopped being vegan because I started feeling unwell"
the discomfort of someone who tried is real and deserves to be taken seriously, but it is almost never investigated. Tiredness, weakness, hunger and "lack of energy" usually come from eating too little, from abrupt changes, from a lack of B12 or from a poorly planned menu, and they tend to have a solution. In the Faunalytics survey of former vegetarians and vegans, 26% cited health as a reason for giving up. Feeling unwell is a reason to seek help and adjust the diet, not to conclude that animals stopped mattering.
Short answer
What you felt was real, and no one should pretend it wasn't. But did you look into the cause? Most of the time it's a lack of calories, of B12 or of planning, and all of that can be solved without animal products. The main nutrition bodies, such as the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, consider well-planned vegan diets appropriate for all stages of life. If you want to try again, with support, I can help you.
For children
When we change what we eat, sometimes the body finds it strange, like when you move house. If someone feels tired, the right thing is to go to a doctor or a nutritionist to find out why: maybe the person is eating too little or is missing a vitamin. It can be solved without hurting any animal.
"Did you get any tests done or talk to a nutritionist while you were vegan?"
Como pode aparecer
"My body misses meat; I feel unwell."
"I stopped being vegan because of my energy."
"I went back to eating meat and got better right away."
"I was vegan for five years and it wrecked my health."
"My body can't adapt." (which is G11)
"I know someone who got sick being vegan." (which is G10)
The strongest version
"I was vegan for a while, but I started feeling unwell, with no energy. My body missed meat. I went back to eating it and got better."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1While I was vegan, I felt unwell.
- P2When I went back to eating meat, I felt better.
- P3No one is obliged to follow a diet that makes them unwell.
- CSo I'm not obliged to be vegan.
P1 and P2 may be true. P3 is true. The problem is the leap between them: P1 and P2 don't show that the discomfort came from the lack of animal products, rather than from eating too little, from a lack of B12 or from a badly put together menu. And even if the person needed some adjustment, that wouldn't show they need all the animal products they consume today.
The argument is valid, but not sound: the conclusion depends on a cause that was never investigated.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument draws a general conclusion from an experience that was never investigated:
What the person observes What they usually conclude What the observation allows them to conclude I felt tired while vegan I was missing meat Something in the diet needed adjusting I got better when I went back to meat Meat was necessary I went back to eating more, and in a more familiar way Other people give up too Veganism doesn't work Changing is hard without support (L10) - b
Where the argument breaks
1. The cause is rarely investigated.
People who change their diet without guidance tend to eat fewer calories, because plant foods tend to be less energy-dense, and less protein, if they just take the meat off the plate without putting legumes in its place. A lack of B12 and iron also causes tiredness. All of this can be solved with planning and, in the case of B12, with a supplement.
2. Getting better after going back doesn't prove the cause.
Someone who returns to their old diet also goes back to eating more and to eating what they already know. The improvement may come from that, and not from the meat itself. Without tests before and after, there's no way to know.
3. Nutrition bodies say the opposite of the conclusion.
The position of the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2016) states that well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are healthy and appropriate for all stages of life. This doesn't mean any vegan diet is good, but that the problem lies in the planning.
4. Giving up is common, and support is rare.
In the Faunalytics survey, 84% of former vegetarians and vegans weren't part of any group or organization, and a third gave up in the first three months. That's the period when the body and routine are still adjusting, and when guidance is needed most.
5. Rare cases exist, and they call for adjustment, not abandonment.
Some people have health conditions that make the diet harder, such as bowel diseases or allergies to several plant foods. Even in those cases, the point is to reduce harm as much as possible, not to go back to consuming everything as before.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Faunalytics, 2014 84% of vegetarians and vegans abandon the diet; 34% within three months, 53% in less than a year. Reasons: dissatisfaction with the food (32%), health (26%), social issues (13%), inconvenience (13%) Survey conducted in 2014 in the United States Faunalytics, 2014 84% of former vegetarians and vegans weren't part of groups or organizations; 37% are interested in going back Melina, Craig and Levin, 2016 Well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are appropriate for all stages of life Position of the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics - d
The strongest counter-reply: I know what I felt, and no one can tell me otherwise
The most serious version says: a person knows their own body better than any study. If they felt unwell and got better after changing, it's reasonable to trust their own experience.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
No one denies what the person felt.
What's in question is the cause. Feeling something is a fact; explaining why you felt it requires investigation.
Personal experience is misleading about causes.
That's why medicine uses tests and controlled studies: two things that happen together aren't always cause and effect.
The experience of millions of healthy vegans counts too.
If personal experience were proof, theirs would be as well.
- f
Back to the moral question
Even if a person needed some animal-derived food, the question would remain the same: is it just to make animals suffer and die when it can be avoided? A need, if real, justifies the minimum necessary, not everything that was consumed before. And for the vast majority of people, with guidance, the need doesn't exist.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False cause
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Anecdotal evidence
Hasty generalization
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
From partial need to total consumption
Biases
Confirmation bias
The explanation that allows a return to the habit is accepted without scrutiny
Linked to G11
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if I felt unwell when I changed a habit, the old habit was necessary".
If it applied to…Quitting smokingTap to see
Anyone with withdrawal symptoms would need cigarettes
Withdrawal passes
If it applied to…Starting to exerciseTap to see
Anyone who feels sore in the first days should stop
The body adapts
If it applied to…Any new dietTap to see
No dietary change would be possible
Every change requires adjustment
Contradictions
But accepted the first explanation when it allowed a return to the old habit.
But the difficulty came to count as proof that they don't matter so much.
But doesn't know, from tests, what was missing.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that the discomfort is real, that no one should follow a diet that makes them unwell, and that many people try veganism without any guidance. It's also right that vegans sometimes underestimate this difficulty, or respond with suspicion to someone who says they felt unwell.
But
But feeling unwell is a reason to investigate and adjust, not to conclude that animals stopped mattering. The best answer to someone who felt unwell is to offer help: tests, a nutritionist and recipes that work.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after