All that 2nd article discusses is the relationship between a vegan diet and cardiovascular disease.
It mentions no real relationship to diabetes, and, especially, does not address the affect on blood glucose levels, which is the most significant factor for me.

Now, my diet is quite high in fiber (nuts, beans, vegetables), and low in fat. I'm not overweight. I gave up smoking a year and a half ago. I exercise daily. I'm not at particular risk for cardiovascular disease.
The articles seems to imply that all us diabetics are fat, which is far from the truth.

The other article merely states that "Eating vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes and nuts ... can improve blood sugar control and make your body more responsive to insulin. This may mean taking less medication and lowering your risk of diabetes-related complications."

I already eat all of that stuff (but with meat, too). I do not use insulin, nor any other medication. My blood sugar stays at normal levels, like those of non-diabetics, due to the diet I now consume, and, of course, exercise.

Were I to go to a strictly vegan diet, my protein intake would come down, my sugar would go up, and I would require medication, which, in the long run, will make me more susceptible to diabetes-related complications.

Normal people eat a diet wherein the vast majority of their calories come from carbs and sugar. I consume, on average, about a quarter of the carbs a normal diet includes, or less, which is what controls my blood sugar. My body burns the few carbs I consume, and when that's not sufficient, my body burns fat and excess protein for energy, in lieu of carbs (fat is a more efficient source of energy, in all truth). I get protein, calcium, and other nutrients from meat, eggs and dairy products. I generally consume lean meats (especially fish and seafood, but also lean beef, pork, and skinless poultry).
My cholesterol is normal.
I went 7 years with no access to health care. When I finally was dirt poor enough to get help from this State, this past year, I went to the doctor, and she said I was in better health than non-diabetics in her care that were half my age, and whatever I was doing, to keep doing it.
I saw a nutritionist and described my typical diet, and she said she would not recommend I change a thing.
What I'm doing is working.
So, for health reasons, it seems a vegan diet has nothing to offer me.
Besides. I like meat. Clearly, it is not damaging my health. I have no motivation to give it up.
It only comprises maybe 10 to 15% of my diet. Dairy and eggs probably comprise another 10%.
Vegetables, beans and nuts comprise the vast majority of foods I consume.

You haven't demonstrated that my logic is faulty, first, simply by saying so.

Second, scientists have indicated that consuming flesh is a more efficient means of acquiring certain nutrients (especially protein). Meat and animal products (eggs, dairy) only comprise about 20 to 25% of my diet.
I eat mostly vegetables, legumes, beans, nuts. The fact that I also consume flesh and animal by-products does not render my diet inefficient. Medical professionals have repeatedly indicated to me that the diet I now follow is optimal for my health and survival. Since I seem to be quite healthy, I will trust the doctors on that one.

Third, we now grow sufficient food to feed 12 billion people, while the world population is only 7 billion (article does mention the inefficiency of grain-fed cattle/beef production, but does not denigrate pasture-fed animals or other means of producing meat). The cause of hunger and poverty is not a lack of food production, but rather greed and the funneling of resources into the hands of a few (also, the above article indicates that much grain is "wasted" in the production of alcohol. Thankfully, there is no such indication of wasted grapes. Wine! ). Much food goes to waste.

I compare veganism to religion, because the rationale most vegans seem to have is often based on "spiritual" notion of equality of species. I value other species, but I am human, and value other humans above other species, because they are my own species. Is that any more logical? Not necessarily so, but certainly no less. This doesn't mean I would condone the annihilation of other species, however, I have no problem with the exploitation of other species for our own survival or nutrition.
After all, plants are another species, too. We consume living things, one way or another. Plants feed on the decomposed remains of animals. Some plants trap and consume live animals (mostly insects). If it's okay to grow and eat plants, why not animals? The only answer anyone can give me are based on "spiritual" or religious concepts (that turkey in my sandwich could be my late Aunt Harriet), or simply that animals are also sentient beings. So what? They're tasty and nutritious sentient beings.

It's okay to eat all animals, just not people (because we're not animals - only the evolutionists believe that). Restrictions start once we take in religion. For us Pentecostals, eating all animals are fine. For the Catholics, some Protestants, and Judaism, there are certain restrictions. I believe the same with Islam.

For Buddhism, I don't recall being taught that there are restrictions to food. Shinto is far too similar to Judaism in belief. (That one will think Shintoism came from Judaism.) Let's see, Confucianism, I can't remember much. And so on.

Then we take in Science too. Science has told us that not all animals are easy to "clean", if we fail to do so (and we usually fail at that), we'll get sick. But you know humanity, we are stubborn.

How many times have religion and Science itself has told us not to eat pigs/swine? Yet we still do. I don't know what pigs in your countries eat but here, you won't believe what they eat - and yet people eat them, you wouldn't be even surprise if they get sick.

I don't think it's "double standard" per se. If we discredit religion, there is still Science that agreed with religions all over what to eat and not to eat. If you ask me, Science is simply the Art of Rediscovering the Knowledge of our Ancestors.

You haven't demonstrated that my logic is faulty, first, simply by saying so.

You really can't see the faulty logic in what you posted? There might not be very much point to continuing this discussion. But aside from the chain of your logic, I'll point out a couple of fallacies below.

Second, scientists have indicated that consuming flesh is a more efficient means of acquiring certain nutrients (especially protein). Meat and animal products (eggs, dairy) only comprise about 20 to 25% of my diet.

The measure of efficiency I'm using entails the amount of vegetable matter and the expanse of land required to feed the animals you eat. That's horrendously inefficient.

Second, your claims about protein are simply absurd. Protein can be readily acquired via soy, amaranth, and quinoa.

I eat mostly vegetables, legumes, beans, nuts. The fact that I also consume flesh and animal by-products does not render my diet inefficient. Medical professionals have repeatedly indicated to me that the diet I now follow is optimal for my health and survival. Since I seem to be quite healthy, I will trust the doctors on that one.

First, there are plenty of doctors who will say the same about a vegan diet. The ones I cited included the Mayo Clinic. Second, you generalized from your own situation to make a claim about veganism for diabetics--a large number of whom are diabetic because they are obese. (Clue: this is one example of your faulty logic.)

Third, we now grow sufficient food to feed 12 billion people, while the world population is only 7 billion (article does mention the inefficiency of grain-fed cattle/beef production, but does not denigrate pasture-fed animals or other means of producing meat). The cause of hunger and poverty is not a lack of food production, but rather greed and the funneling of resources into the hands of a few (also, the above article indicates that much grain is "wasted" in the production of alcohol. Thankfully, there is no such indication of wasted grapes. Wine! ). Much food goes to waste.

With climate change pushing growing regions farther and farther north, this is unlikely to remain the case. The soils might be unsuitable, but simple spherical geometry says there's less land mass near the poles than near the equator. Other factors limiting the validity of your claim include excessive fertilizer and pesticide use (the so-called "Green Revolution") that contaminate soil, eventually yielding unarable land. Even without pesticides and fertilizers, irrigation leads to a build-up of salt, again eventually making land unarable.

I compare veganism to religion, because the rationale most vegans seem to have is often based on "spiritual" notion of equality of species. I value other species, but I am human, and value other humans above other species, because they are my own species. Is that any more logical? Not necessarily so, but certainly no less. This doesn't mean I would condone the annihilation of other species, however, I have no problem with the exploitation of other species for our own survival or nutrition.

I don't know where you get the notion that this is "spiritual." The arguments have been taken up by philosophers who tend to matters of logic and ethics (I've covered some of this ground tangentially a long ways down a rather long essay here) rather than spirituality (the latter being more the domain of theology). Your categorization of the argument as "spiritual" dismisses rather than tends to these philosophical considerations. I'm not sure what the precise fallacy here is--ad hominem isn't a precise match, but it is of that kind. Again, hint, fallacious logic.

After all, plants are another species, too. We consume living things, one way or another. Plants feed on the decomposed remains of animals. Some plants trap and consume live animals (mostly insects). If it's okay to grow and eat plants, why not animals? The only answer anyone can give me are based on "spiritual" or religious concepts (that turkey in my sandwich could be my late Aunt Harriet), or simply that animals are also sentient beings. So what? They're tasty and nutritious sentient beings.

It is indeed true that we must eat something. But the difference is that animals have complex neurological systems--brains. They manifestly fear being led into slaughterhouses. They sense that something horrible is happening to the animals ahead of them. They know.

Finally, your claim to distinguish between "spiritual" and acceptable ways of knowing and "spiritual" and acceptable knowledge is entirely faulty. Unfortunately, I would have to lead you through several semesters of graduate-level work to illustrate this. But I can suggest the foundational books in my methods classes here, here, here, and here. And I'd also point out that your distinction would be offensive to many indigenous people, including, I rather strongly suspect, several present here in this network.

All right, let me break this down:

Vegetarian meals are generally high in sugar and carbohydrates, while low in fat and protein.
I must follow a diet that is low in carbohydrates and sugar, and get much of my energy from fats.
My current diet, which I have been following for a decade, includes many vegetables, it is true, as well as nuts, beans, and some fruit, but it also contains animal flesh and animal by-products (dairy, eggs), from which I acquire protein, fats, and other nutrients.

The diet I am on has been working for me, for a decade, maintaining my blood sugar within normal parameters (ie. the parameters of a non-diabetic), coupled, of course, with regular exercise.
I am very healthy. The doctor says I'm healthier than most of the non-diabetic patients they see of my age, and even non-diabetics half my age. (I race teenagers at the roller rink, and win).
So, my diet is healthy.

Thus, for health reasons, it seems logical to continue my current diet. There is no such thing as a vegan diet that is high in fat and protein and low in carbs and sugar. Were I to follow a vegan diet, I would be forced to depend on chemicals, drugs, medicines, to control my blood sugar.
I won't do it. I absolutely refuse to become dependent on pharmaceuticals and the pharmaceutical industry until I have absolutely no other choice.

Certainly, there are diabetics, already dependent on pharmaceuticals, who don't care, who are obese and need to lose weight, and for whom, perhaps, a vegan diet is a potentially valid option.
This is not the case with me. I am not obese. I do not take medication. I refuse to take medication.
I do not need medication when following the diet that has kept me healthy, very healthy, for the past decade, which includes meat.

There are no leaps in that logic. It is quite simple:
My diet works for me. It is healthy. It includes meat. A vegetarian or vegan diet would be higher in carbs and sugar, lower in protein and fats, thus requiring the use of drugs to keep me healthy.
It is healthier to live free of dependency on drugs, which is easily demonstrable: especially free from dependency from pharmaceutical companies in a society where I could lose my health coverage and not be able to purchase their products, as, indeed, I lived 7 years without any coverage at all, and controlling my blood sugar without drugs was my ONLY option. Thus, a well-rounded diet, including vegetables, legumes, fruits, AND dairy and meat, is the best option for my health (several doctors and one nutritionist have told me as much).

I really don't want to argue with you, @David Benfell . I have great respect for you. But for me, an omnivorous diet is the best, most logical, most efficient, most economical, and healthiest option.

Where's the hole in this logic?

To consume the same amount of proteins (amino acids, etc.) and fat in vegetable products only, I would have to consume large amounts and complex (and expensive) combinations of vegetables and legumes. The large amounts would introduce more carbohydrates and sugar into my diet than are acceptable, and the expense I can not bear.
I would not be able to rely on local farms for the bulk of my vegetable produce, as I do now, because I would need more products that do not grow in this New England climate (such as soy, which we've already identified as another harmful industry), as well (and thus, be supporting the shipping of stuff all over, and dependence on petroleum, ships, trucks, etc. to get my food).
Eating fish (especially if I catch it myself), poultry, and other meats, raised locally (and often on organic farms) is the best, most efficient (economically and logistically) means of providing myself the proteins and fats I require without gorging myself on carbs and sugars I do not need, and which will be harmful to me.

There is no suitable vegan replacement for the diet I currently follow that will provide sufficient proteins and fats and still be appropriately low in sugars and carbohydrates.

Logic, itself, is quite simple, so to tell me that you can't demonstrate to me the hole in my logic without several years of graduate study is, frankly, a cop out. I have studied logic, thank you, and I understand it quite well.

I have already demonstrated that an omnivorous diet is for me the best, most logical, most efficient, most economical, and healthiest option.

It is also, and this is patently obvious, quite natural. Man and his predecessors have been consuming an omnivorous diets since before recorded history.

Thus, the only other possible reason I could possibly have for choosing a vegan diet (and, thus, having to poison myself with expensive pharmaceuticals that could be withheld from me at any time), would have to be based on religion, or, if you like, ethics. But, for me, if ethics don't stand up to logic, they are meaningless, and religion, of course, to me, is foolishness. So, what reason could I possibly have to give up meat and poison myself with drugs? These two things are inseparable, for me. Either I continue with my current diet, or I must depend on drugs (and prop up an industry whose ethics are quite possibly far darker than even the meat production industry: pharmaceuticals, who profit from making their products unavailable to those who need them, unless they are wealthy or buy into yet another industry completely profiting from human suffering and extortion, the health insurance industry).

I have not, at any time, stated that others should not follow a vegan diet, if that is their choice, and if it is healthy for them. I have only declared that for me it is not a viable option, and I have supported that statement with anecdotal evidence showing that my current diet works, that medical professionals support my current diet (indeed, a physician among us PM-ed me and also supports that statement), and that altering my diet would or could have dire consequences to my health, be impractical, and be costly on various levels (as well as end up supporting industries I find as unethical, if not worse, than meat producers. There are, I might add, several ranchers and farmers in my own family, all of whom are quite ethical people).

I am drug free, supplement free, healthy, and happy with the diet I currently follow. It works for me. I eat cheap, and I can find food locally without having to go to great expense or hardship to eat weird, vegan stuff.

@tony baldwin , as long as you're speaking only for yourself, that's one thing. You made claims however like you would never be able to eat in a restaurant again--which is false--and that "vegetarian meals are generally high in sugar and carbohydrates, while low in fat and protein"--which is only partly true.

It is simply false that a vegan diet inadequate in protein. There are numerous excellent protein sources in vegetable foods. Sugar and carbohydrates can be managed, though I'll certainly admit this is more difficult than with an omnivorous diet. So your logic, even applied only to yourself, depends on validity rather than soundness, and when generalized to others isn't even valid.

@David Sugar , there seems to be the outstanding case of the Makah Nation, which in the words of Lawrence Sampson, claims a "sovereign and natural right to hunt whales." And there are people in the Arctic regions where farming is, for the foreseeable future (which might not be for very long), impossible. These are problematic cases for me. I see rights being extended to humans which are not extended to, in the case of the Makah, whales. And certainly the baby harp seal hunt in the Canadian north is mostly not about sustenance.

One of the quandaries I find, having just read a chapter on restorative justice (which takes decolonization as essential) is that there is a certain colonization going on between humans generally and animals. It is certainly more egregious in modern society, where certainly modern methods of food production eliminate any possibility of communion between hunter and prey, but I am troubled by the assertion that one can kill an animal without asserting superiority over it. Killing is force is domination. Even if it is for sustenance.

And the assumption that humans have the right to dominate nature or other species is of a kind that pattrice jones(she spells her name in lower case) powerfully connects with the subordination of women. John Bodley in turn connects this attitude to the intrusions upon indigenous land and the assaults on indigenous people.

I am well aware of the importance attached to tradition. But I think some traditions need to change.

I've looked at a few resources for low-carb vegetarian diets, but it seemed most of them were not fully vegetarian (or not fully vegan, at least) and relied on dairy, sometimes even eggs (eggs are not a vegetable) to provide protein, as well as leaning heavily on soy products, and some included fish.
If they're going to include fish, eggs and dairy, they differ very little from my diet, except that I do also consume poultry, a lot, plus some pork and beef, etc.
Then there are low-carb omni diets that lean almost exclusively on meat for protein, and end up too high in fat (and esp. cholesterol, which isn't good) and missing other essential nutrients.

My diet is more balanced than either of the above. Vegetables (and legumes) ARE the bulk of my diet. Also, my diet favors raw, fresh, unprocessed foods (well, I cook meat, of course) over processed, pre-packaged "foods" riddled with preservatives and chemicals. (things like tofu, mock-meats, and TVP, to me, just seem like more over-processed, artificial blech).

Beef is the meat I eat the least, likely, mostly because it's most expensive, although I will use ground beef to make a huge pot of chili frequently, with lots of beans, of course. I cook beans with pork a lot, using cheap cuts, like tails, shoulders, feet/knuckles, all of which can often be found for less than $1/lb, sometimes as little as 39¢, and slow cooking them with the beans. The meal is mostly beans, in this case. I still consume more chicken than pork, however, and probably more fish, too, either what I can catch (catfish, especially) or tilapia. I make soups (chili, pork-n-beans, chicken soup) a lot. For us poor folks, it's the best way to stretch the food.

The second article you post, on peertrainer.com, is good stuff.
Ultimately, it describes a diet a lot like mine as ideal, one with lots of green vegetables and legumes, some dairy, and, still, moderate amounts of lean meats and fish.
Pumpkin and some squash are also very good (when not cooked up with tonso sugar). I eat a lot of greens (kale, collards, mustard, spinach, dandelions, arrugula, etc.), broccoli, green beans, but also carrots (always raw, not cooked, as cooking releases more sugar), radishes, onions, pumpkin and squash, cucumbers from time to time. Pumpkin, squash and cukes all grow well locally, as do collards and, surprisingly, arrugula. Occasionally asparagus, peppers of all kinds, cauliflower.
Collards or kale lightly sautéed in oil with garlic and salt is yummy (very rarely boil them, and if I do, I will drink the water afterwards, since a lot of nutrients are lost in the water. I will add them to soups and sauces.).
I should eat more broccoli, really, but it's expensive compared to the greens and other veggies I eat most. It's insanely good for you, of course, some nutritionists saying it's about the most healthy food ever.
For fruit, the one I eat most is apples (fiber, vitamins, and less sugar than citrus or bananas), but also various berries (esp. strawberries). I like sliced apples or strawberries with peanut butter spread on them. This, for me, is a most scrumptious dessert or snack. CT has many apple orchards and strawberries also grow here well.

I eat lots of nuts, but, admittedly, mostly peanuts, because they're cheap, while other nuts would be good. Like beans, of course, they're rife with protein and fiber. Beans have more iron, though.
I consume dairy, mostly cottage cheese, other, solid cheeses (cheddar, mozzarella, muenster, colby, etc.), some yogurt (rarely, because it's hard to find yogurt not riddled with sugar, but a greek yogurt and strawberry smoothie is lovely). I don't drink milk frequently, but do on occasion.
I eat eggs frequently, probably, on average, 3 or 4 mornings/week for breakfast, in fact, usually scrambled with cheese, frequently with greens mixed in, and when I can splurge, with yummy mushrooms.

If/when I go out to restaurants (rare, being expensive), I tend to eat salads, a lot, often with meat (taco salad, salad with grilled chicken or salmon or tuna, etc.).

I eat very little grains. Pasta, bread, potatoes, rice are the things I avoid, being carby items, although Dreamfields lo-carb pasta is good (high in fiber and protein, only 5g of carbs that count per serving, and tastes like real pasta, unlike other brands that taste like cardboard). Sometimes I will bake a potato for my kid, make mashed with the innards for her and eat the skin. This is a good supplement for my potassium intake, especially.

To address claims about faulty logic in my posts:

The measure of efficiency I'm using entails the amount of vegetable matter and the expanse of land required to feed the animals you eat. That's horrendously inefficient.

I can't eat an acre of grass or corn, but a cow can, and happily and naturally converts it into a tasty and protein rich steak for me. That's not inefficiency.

Second, your claims about protein are simply absurd. Protein can be readily acquired via soy, amaranth, and quinoa.

Soy and quinoa are also high in carbohydrates, and we've discussed here the hazards of soy production. Also, they do not grow locally. I know nothing of amaranth. Other beans and nuts are high in protein, and I do consume them. Beef (and oysters) is a good source of, for instance, chromium picolinate, an essential nutrient that aids in the regulation of blood sugar, which is present in only trace amounts in vegetable products (most notably, potatoes, whole grains, broccoli and onions. I do not eat potatoes and can consume only small amounts of grains) . There are other nutrients largely absent from veggies that are present in meat, and then there's the matter of which proteins or amino acids are available in which substances. To reproduce the proper combinations of amino acids we consume in meats really takes a complex understanding of vegetable proteins and all kinds of gymnastics and complex combinations of foods. I won't say it's impossible, but it IS complex, difficult, and, frankly, more expensive and often less efficient than simply consuming flesh, involves a lot more of shipping stuff all over (burning of fossil fuels, bad for environment), etc.
Thus, buying a turkey from a local farm or catching a catfish in a local lake is a much more efficient and natural means of providing myself with protein and less harmful to the environment than purchasing some excessively processed soy product shipped here from Brazil and grown in soil that once was home to the rain forest.

It is indeed true that we must eat something. But the difference is that animals have complex neurological systems--brains. They manifestly fear being led into slaughterhouses. They sense that something horrible is happening to the animals ahead of them. They know.

That they have brains, I do not doubt (some say brains are tasty, but I have not tried them). That they know what happens in the slaughterhouse, I do not know. Perhaps. But what has this to do with my nutrition? Do you forget, I am an atheist, a realist, a skeptic, and a nihilist. On a very practical level, animals are a walking (or swimming or flying) source of protein and other nutrients. To flatly state "they feel fear/pain, ergo, you must not eat them", is a very large leap, indeed, and I do not see the logic, frankly. ("Tomatoes are red, ergo, you must not eat them" seems just as logical to me) Granted, I don't particularly enjoy causing anyone or anything to suffer, but for my own survival and that of my family or my species, if some other thing must suffer, let's make it suffer as little as possible, but suffer it must.

As for the ethics of raising animals and killing them to eat, it is a murky matter. This article presents some interesting perspective on the question.

And I'd also point out that your distinction would be offensive to many indigenous people, including, I rather strongly suspect, several present here in this network.

Many things I think or believe to be true are offensive to many people. Teatards, for instance, are offended when I state that resources must be more equitably distributed. The religious right is offended when I support my gay friends' rights. I do not intentionally or gleefully offend anyone (well, with the possible exception of teatards and republicunts), but I do not re-arrange my own thoughts to avoid offending anyone, either. That would be illogical, especially if/when my own thoughts are largely based on (my perception of) logic.

Here's something that remains unaddressed:
The species recognized as most intelligent, for example, primates (including people and other apes), dolphins, rodents (especially rats), etc., are largely omnivorous. Some are, indeed, carnivorous.
Predators are, in general, considered to be more intelligent than the herbivores upon which they prey, since hunting requires much more thought than simply wandering around eating grass, but, admittedly, this is a generalization. Nonetheless, take a look at this list of the 10 most intelligent, non-human species. They are ALL omnivores or carnivores. Some of them (elephants, orangutans, chimps) consume MOSTLY plant foods, but there are definitely recorded cases (albeit rare) of elephants eating flesh (even people), and orangutans, chimps will eat insects and other animals. Oddly, the smartest creature of all, the cat (in its various forms), is entirely missing from this list, but we know they eat meat. To my knowledge, porpoises are entirely carnivorous, but I could be wrong there. Squirrels eat mostly nuts and other plant items, but are also known to consume insects or meat on occasion.

As for making manifestly false statements, I don't see where anybody here has yet demonstrated that I have made them. If I've missed something, do feel free to repeat it or point it out.