Humans are not vegan
Published 6.24.2025: Dr Doug Lyle presented the next talk at the vegan seminar, "The Truth About Weight Loss." He did not use any slides, so this piece is based on the short set of notes that I took during his rather short talk. The title of his talk was, How Our Brains Are Wired and What We Can Learn from Ancestors.
He began by saying that human history began in the Kalahari. That's where we began, and modern humans should base their diet on the ancient peoples of the Kalahari, so far, so consistent with other vegan presentations.
But then… Dr Doug Lyle (VEGAN!!) admitted the truth: Humans are NOT vegan. Human history is not one of veganism— Indeed there has never been a human vegan society. That a VEGAN said this is HUGE (to me). I think my jaw hit the ground after he said that. No wonder his presentation was kept short…
Why did he say (admit) that? Because if people are to be persuaded to become vegans, vegans cannot lie about the human past. And the truth is that humans ate meat. Humans killed animals for food. For generations and from very early on. That is a FACT. I just never thought that I would hear an actual vegan admit that fact.
Another famous vegan, T Colin Campbell, for instance, published The China Study in which he found that populations eating less meat were healthier. He then extrapolated to 0% meat and asserted that a vegan diet was the healthiest. There are, there were no vegan populations or societies in China— a point Campbell was forced to admit in an interview with a British program (I'm sure that I wrote about it, but I cannot find it, hence there is no link to my writing, the link provided is Campbell's point of view).
According to Lyle (and everyone outside vegans), science does not support humans being vegan. Humans cannot get everything that they need from plants alone, and back before we had the ability to fortify and supplement our food, humans could not be and were not vegan. Some were all but vegan, but not vegan. (Here I am using the definition that veganism desires to minimize the harm to any animals— which for some means clothing and other things besides diet. For many, it just means diet.)
And that's Lyle's point… in the past, veganism was not possible, now it is, and everyone should be vegan. He thinks hunter gatherers are best, because they have the broadest palates… but my dude, those palates ate honey (not vegan) and meat (also not vegan). Dairy requires farming and agriculture, so Hunter gatherers were unlikely to eat dairy.
So after admitting that history and science do not support the idea that humans are vegan, he spends the rest of the time arguing that modern humans should be vegan. I didn't take a lot of notes here, I'm sure that fortification and supplementation came up, as did climate change. But it's been long enough now that I don't remember.
I do want to take a moment to discuss fortification and supplementation though, because I am not convinced that they will "save the day" for vegans in modern times. Let's dispense with extreme vegan diets (fruitarian, raw vegans and 80-10-10 nonsense) and only discuss so called "normal" vegans, who's only goal is to avoid eating animal products of any kind. Even these types of people have a difficult time remaining vegan. They just do. And if you doubt me, go to YouTube and search for "ex-vegan".
All diets have people quitting them left and right, veganism isn't any different in that respect. What is different about veganism is the moral aspect of it. So-called "ethical" vegans claim that they don't eat animal products because they don't want to injure animals. If you then start eating meat… aren't you injuring animals?
Nor is the vegan diet alone in requiring adherents to take a variety of supplements. Low carbers and keto fools take a bunch, for instance. As for vegan doctors, most of them refuse to admit that supplementation is necessary for a vegan diet. Dr McDougall, for instance, didn't even like to admit that vegans needed vitamin B12. Dr. Furhman (also vegan) to his credit (in my mind) notes that without supplements beyond B12 that elderly vegans will not thrive. But are supplements as good as food sources? I'm not convinced.
The reason I wanted to bring up fortification is that I have recently read that folic acid (and very common fortification) might be cancer causing. That gives the oft stated vegan claim that supplementation is not necessary if you eat enough fortified foods a new light. The fact that humans would be healthier if they ate more plants cannot plausibly be denied (and I've made my opinion of keto fools and low carbers who would try to do so eminently clear), but the need to eschew eating animal products all together is less clear.
Vegan recommendations have changed over the years— perhaps in response to so many people trying it and not being able to maintain it? Basically, veganism is an experiment— it's not the human experience, and so those following it can't look to the past. All but vegan is not vegan. And even in the "all but" case, whenever they had the opportunity to eat animal products, they did. Even Dr Lyle admits that the human sweet tooth was developed by eating honey. And the Hazda tribe still covets honey and actively seeks it out. They are anything but vegan. So if Lyle's in favor of Hunter-Gatherers, would he try to tell them they are doing it wrong?
I think being honest would help vegans greatly— though "ethical" vegans might disagree. The argument that modern humans no longer need to eat animals is very different than trying to convince people that the vegan diet is the "natural" diet of humans. With the former, supplementation becomes the norm, whereas with the latter, why would supplementation or fortification be required of a "natural" human diet?
UPDATE added June 3, 2025: I'm jumping the gun admitting this, because I will talk about it when I come to the final day of the seminar, but one result of my attending this seminar, is that I now listen to the podcast, The Exam Room sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (which exists to promote veganism). The podcast is hosted by Chuck Carroll, who was interviewed by AJ on the last day.
I'm updating this post because on Monday June 2nd, Carroll interviewed a vegan neuroscientist, Dr Dean Sherzai, who again falls into the honest vegan category sa Doug Lyle above. This YouTube video (I actually listen on my phone, but it is made as a YouTube video) is WELL worth watching. Dr Sherzai's main point is that vegans need to follow the data AND be honest about that data when It doesn't favor their diet. (Paging Dr Barnard…)
There are many powerfully positive things about the whole food plant base diet, but there are downsides and challenges associated with the diet, and too often vegans ignore those. Dr Sherzai actually uses the term cult… which is very interesting to me. And of course, he has a podcast (which started not that long ago) that I have started listening to.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT any type of medical professional. Do NOT take medical advice from me!!
He began by saying that human history began in the Kalahari. That's where we began, and modern humans should base their diet on the ancient peoples of the Kalahari, so far, so consistent with other vegan presentations.
But then… Dr Doug Lyle (VEGAN!!) admitted the truth: Humans are NOT vegan. Human history is not one of veganism— Indeed there has never been a human vegan society. That a VEGAN said this is HUGE (to me). I think my jaw hit the ground after he said that. No wonder his presentation was kept short…
Why did he say (admit) that? Because if people are to be persuaded to become vegans, vegans cannot lie about the human past. And the truth is that humans ate meat. Humans killed animals for food. For generations and from very early on. That is a FACT. I just never thought that I would hear an actual vegan admit that fact.
Another famous vegan, T Colin Campbell, for instance, published The China Study in which he found that populations eating less meat were healthier. He then extrapolated to 0% meat and asserted that a vegan diet was the healthiest. There are, there were no vegan populations or societies in China— a point Campbell was forced to admit in an interview with a British program (I'm sure that I wrote about it, but I cannot find it, hence there is no link to my writing, the link provided is Campbell's point of view).
According to Lyle (and everyone outside vegans), science does not support humans being vegan. Humans cannot get everything that they need from plants alone, and back before we had the ability to fortify and supplement our food, humans could not be and were not vegan. Some were all but vegan, but not vegan. (Here I am using the definition that veganism desires to minimize the harm to any animals— which for some means clothing and other things besides diet. For many, it just means diet.)
And that's Lyle's point… in the past, veganism was not possible, now it is, and everyone should be vegan. He thinks hunter gatherers are best, because they have the broadest palates… but my dude, those palates ate honey (not vegan) and meat (also not vegan). Dairy requires farming and agriculture, so Hunter gatherers were unlikely to eat dairy.
So after admitting that history and science do not support the idea that humans are vegan, he spends the rest of the time arguing that modern humans should be vegan. I didn't take a lot of notes here, I'm sure that fortification and supplementation came up, as did climate change. But it's been long enough now that I don't remember.
I do want to take a moment to discuss fortification and supplementation though, because I am not convinced that they will "save the day" for vegans in modern times. Let's dispense with extreme vegan diets (fruitarian, raw vegans and 80-10-10 nonsense) and only discuss so called "normal" vegans, who's only goal is to avoid eating animal products of any kind. Even these types of people have a difficult time remaining vegan. They just do. And if you doubt me, go to YouTube and search for "ex-vegan".
All diets have people quitting them left and right, veganism isn't any different in that respect. What is different about veganism is the moral aspect of it. So-called "ethical" vegans claim that they don't eat animal products because they don't want to injure animals. If you then start eating meat… aren't you injuring animals?
Nor is the vegan diet alone in requiring adherents to take a variety of supplements. Low carbers and keto fools take a bunch, for instance. As for vegan doctors, most of them refuse to admit that supplementation is necessary for a vegan diet. Dr McDougall, for instance, didn't even like to admit that vegans needed vitamin B12. Dr. Furhman (also vegan) to his credit (in my mind) notes that without supplements beyond B12 that elderly vegans will not thrive. But are supplements as good as food sources? I'm not convinced.
The reason I wanted to bring up fortification is that I have recently read that folic acid (and very common fortification) might be cancer causing. That gives the oft stated vegan claim that supplementation is not necessary if you eat enough fortified foods a new light. The fact that humans would be healthier if they ate more plants cannot plausibly be denied (and I've made my opinion of keto fools and low carbers who would try to do so eminently clear), but the need to eschew eating animal products all together is less clear.
Vegan recommendations have changed over the years— perhaps in response to so many people trying it and not being able to maintain it? Basically, veganism is an experiment— it's not the human experience, and so those following it can't look to the past. All but vegan is not vegan. And even in the "all but" case, whenever they had the opportunity to eat animal products, they did. Even Dr Lyle admits that the human sweet tooth was developed by eating honey. And the Hazda tribe still covets honey and actively seeks it out. They are anything but vegan. So if Lyle's in favor of Hunter-Gatherers, would he try to tell them they are doing it wrong?
I think being honest would help vegans greatly— though "ethical" vegans might disagree. The argument that modern humans no longer need to eat animals is very different than trying to convince people that the vegan diet is the "natural" diet of humans. With the former, supplementation becomes the norm, whereas with the latter, why would supplementation or fortification be required of a "natural" human diet?
UPDATE added June 3, 2025: I'm jumping the gun admitting this, because I will talk about it when I come to the final day of the seminar, but one result of my attending this seminar, is that I now listen to the podcast, The Exam Room sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (which exists to promote veganism). The podcast is hosted by Chuck Carroll, who was interviewed by AJ on the last day.
I'm updating this post because on Monday June 2nd, Carroll interviewed a vegan neuroscientist, Dr Dean Sherzai, who again falls into the honest vegan category sa Doug Lyle above. This YouTube video (I actually listen on my phone, but it is made as a YouTube video) is WELL worth watching. Dr Sherzai's main point is that vegans need to follow the data AND be honest about that data when It doesn't favor their diet. (Paging Dr Barnard…)
There are many powerfully positive things about the whole food plant base diet, but there are downsides and challenges associated with the diet, and too often vegans ignore those. Dr Sherzai actually uses the term cult… which is very interesting to me. And of course, he has a podcast (which started not that long ago) that I have started listening to.
DISCLAIMER: I am NOT any type of medical professional. Do NOT take medical advice from me!!