How dodgy is soy?

[massrock]

Disordered eating is disordered eating, this can happen to anyone across the dietary spectrum.

Yes but how does veganism = 'disordered'?

It's not healthy to have to spend an excessive amount of your day thinking about your next meal and planning your time around what you'll be eating.

Excessive is 'too much' by definition so that's not really saying anything.

And 'not healthy to have to'? Some people might 'have to' spend time thinking about what they eat (serious allergy sufferers, diabetics etc.), some people might 'choose to'. Vegans don't really 'have to' spend that much more time thinking about what they eat. Is thinking a bit about what you eat a bad thing?

Who decides what is 'excessive', what is 'unhealthy'? What is the standard? How much time people spend on food is largely culturally determined and/or to do with circumstances I would say.

Is it 'not healthy' for people who have to farm / forage for long hours for their food to do so?

Is it 'not healthy' for Mediterranean family meals to go on for days?

Is it 'not healthy' for gourmands to spend a good deal of time planning and thinking about food? Would that be a fetish or a mental disorder?

But really I think this is beside the point as it's not that difficult to maintain a vegan diet. Any extra effort involved (over what? and as if a little effort were a bad thing...) has in the first place to do with self education and a little discipline, and then to do with the circumstances of living in a society that doesn't always directly cater for that kind of diet. Once you know what you're doing and fairly organised it shouldn't be a big deal.

Personally, I think veganism is only feasible, easy and therefore mentally supremely healthy for people who make a shit ton of money. I think this because I went to a school that was around 50% vegan, and guess what? I could never have afforded to do that, only the rich kids could have.

It doesn't cost a ton of money to eat a vegan diet in a developed country if you can be a bit organised with buying ingredients and cooking. As long as you have access to cooking facilities it's not that hard. I don't know what you or your schoolmates were doing but obviously your sample does not represent the total reality of how to realistically follow a vegan diet.

And the implication that only things that are 'easy' (or cheap) are 'mentally supremely healthy' is beyond daft.

Myself I think it's a bit extreme and unnecessary I wouldn't try and stick to a strictly vegan diet these days. It's also true that if you are going to eat vegan then you have to know what you are doing to an extent and be careful to eat the right mix of stuff. But really that just goes for eating in general. And I have seen cases where veganism coincides with eating disorders in people, it can be turned into a bit of a neurotic focus, but to suggest that being conscious and deliberate about what you eat is 'disordered' eating is really wrong.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

ah well, here we go...

Disordered eating is disordered eating, this can happen to anyone across the dietary spectrum. It's not healthy to have to spend an excessive amount of your day thinking about your next meal and planning your time around what you'll be eating.

End of discussion. I feel sorry for the ignoramuses who don't "take psychology seriously", as I do for the rest of the types who "don't trust them thurr doctors"...sad.

how do you know how much time any vegan spends thinking about & planning their next meal? you don't, obviously. nor does anyone else, except those people themselves. you can keep repeating "it's a disorder" but that won't make it true. or any less ridiculous.

that bit about "only rich people can be vegans" is also nonsense. only rich people can afford to buy expensive brand name health food, that is true. but veganism doesn't = expensive brand name health food. it is, again, often cheaper than eating meat b/c most of the foods you eat are cheaper than meat. I've known, for example, plenty of vegan Mexican punks who did just fine in a non-1st world country despite not being wealthy even by Mexican standards.

I said psychology "as a profession", by which I really mean only clinical psychology & which I stick by 100% (tho even there surely there are plenty of exceptions). I was being a bit flip anyway. tho I dunno, in my experience psychologists are way more gung-ho than anyone else about the shiteness of their profession.

sidenote - it's a little bit crazy how fervently people attack veganism - not just here but generally, I've seen it plenty of times - as if it ran their children over with a car or something. & for very little reason, seemingly.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

This isn't true, either.

There was a version of the DSM that still listed homosexuality as a "paraphilia" until 1973. A paraphilia is not a "mental disorder", it's a fetish.

But it's called the Diagnostic & Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders...

I'll just offer up first 2 definitions of paraphilia a search turns up.

One of several complex psychiatric disorders that are manifested as deviant sexual behavior...

Any of a group of psychosexual disorders characterized by sexual fantasies, feelings, or activities involving a nonhuman object, a nonconsenting partner such as a child, or pain or humiliation of oneself or one's partner. Also called sexual deviation.

I'm sure you're right tho, you being the expert.

 

[nomadthethird]

There are vegans whose eating qualifies as "disordered" under the guidlines laid down by mental health professionals. I can't believe this is even somehow being argued against. This is a fact. Look it up.

It is expensive to live on vegetables, it can be expensive for me to buy vegetables and I'm not even vegan-- it's harder to get full, maintain a healthy weight especially if you have growing children and a family. It can be done, of course, but it's not as efficient as a lacto-ovo vegetarian alternative, say, or a lean white meat "zone" diet.

I never said, and I in no way implied, that everyone who is a vegan has an eating disorder. Even the fact that some psychologists find veganism problematic as a lifestyle, and therefore see veganism as a type of eating disorder, has more to do with our society's tendency toward very unhealthy norms than it does with the fact that it's "bad" to avoid animal products in your diet. Get it? Sometimes, a society's norms can be very skewed in favor of one way of living. This can make another way of living very very hard to support. Hence, it can cause a person serious stress or strain trying to live "against the grain" in choosing this lifestyle. Veganism isn't an unhealthy diet, but it can be very difficult to maintain. This goes to point 2, which is that,

Yes, for a long time, because homosexuality and alternative sexual lifestyles were SO frowned upon, homosexuals did not live out in the open. So their behavior was classified as a "paraphilia" or a type of behavior that deviated from the heterosexual norm. According to statistics, homosexuality is still by far a minority sexual behavior/preference, and therefore could still feasibly count as a "paraphilia" by this definition. It was removed from the list of paraphilias in the DSM as homosexuals began to live in "couples" that more closely resembled heterosexual pairings.

Paraphilias are NOT considered in and of themselves "mental disorders", although sometimes people with paraphilias have mental disorders or behavioral problems. Where are these references from? I'm guessing they're not from credible professional websites. The first one in particular sounds like the sort of bullshit some religious nut would have posted.

According to your little list there, sado-masochism is a paraphilia and therefore a "disorder." Except, google "Psychology Today" and S&M and you'll see that, with most other alternative sexual practices, this paraphilia is not considered a "disorder" by psychologists. It hasn't been since, oh, never. Victorian Britain?

P.S. The "average American" thinks that the earth is 4000 years old. The average American thinks homosexuals will burn in hell because they don't give 10 percent of their income to Jeebus, Inc., and because they don't get married and make babies with their heterosexual partner in destiny for life. If there's anyone who's homophobic, it's the "average American", not the establishment of psychiatric or "psychological" professionals. I don't put much stock in what average Americans think, but even if I did, Americans certainly do believe in psychology. Their law enforcement agencies use it everyday, the FBI uses it, public schools use it, the penal system uses it, probation officers use it, etc. etc. "Psychology" is a pretty broad field, it's impossible to malign all at once with any real meaning. I suppose what you meant is Victorian psychoanalysis, but even its central insights (e.g. unconscious thought, infantile sexuality) have been confirmed by contemporary neurology and developmental biology. The language of psychoanalysis has been adopted into our everyday usage and pop psychology verbatim. Saying you don't believe in psychology is like saying you don't believe that people have feelings or thoughts.

 

[nomadthethird]

From wikipedia on "paraphilia":

Sexual arousal in association with objects that were designed for sexual purposes is not DSM diagnosable (DSM, p. 570).[6] Some people diagnosed with paraphilias undergo voluntary or involuntary intervention to alter their behavior.

The view of paraphilias as disorders is not universal. Charles Allen Moser, a physician and advocate for sexual minorities, has argued that the diagnoses should be eliminated from diagnostic manuals.[7] Groups seeking greater understanding and acceptance of sexual diversity have lobbied for changes to the legal and medical status of unusual sexual interests and practices. Psychiatrist Glen Gabbard writes that despite efforts by Stekel and Money, "the term paraphilia remains pejorative in most circumstances."

So, whereas in the medical community you have people actually discussing these matters rationally, outside of the traditional heternormative framework, and understanding that not all paraphilias are "bad" or "immoral", your average American just yells "freak!" then burns the person's house down or ties them to a fence and beats them to death.

 

[nomadthethird]

This thread is just taking some ludicrous turns. Nobody said you shouldn't be a vegan. Why all of this defensive posturing?

Yes, in the past, our research disciplines have used a "normative" framework when studying human behavior. (Tell me something I don't know and readily acknowledge all the time.) Funnily enough, these same disciplines have been the first to abandon these frameworks even while the "average joes", religious enthusiasts, and moralists have clung to them with increasing fervor.

It's very difficult to make models that account for every possible variation in behavior, preference, lifestyle. In general, societies tend to choose a rather narrow set of values that it prefers over others, ostracizing those who step outside. It hasn't been until more recently that humans have made discoveries that challenge these narrow moralistic/normative social constructs. But it's the sciences that have led the way, including psychology. In fact, before the psychoanalysts, no one would even discuss the fact that people masturbate or that women have orgasms ffs.

 

[mistersloane]

I love duck, but I can't imagine that tofu duck is any good...but I'm sure you're right.

There used to be a veggie Chinese on 45th and 7th maybe? in Manhattan that did mock duck that was so good I honestly thought they were serving up real duck just to laugh at the stupid vegetarians.

I tried to do it at home once. That was enough. It was one of the worst food abortions I ever gave birth to. Leave it to the professionals on that one.

 

[mistersloane]

I don't wanna fan the flames - I think you're all agreeing with each other but not kinda noticing yet, but don't babies and growing kids need a certain amount of fat for their brains to develop? Can this be gotten on a vegan diet? This is coming from someone who was vegan for years so I'm not anti-it, just wondering out loud about what the research says now.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

before I wade thru the rest.

There are vegans whose eating qualifies as "disordered" under the guidlines laid down by mental health professionals.

well certainly as w/people of any diet. if you had been clear in the first place. I remain highly skeptical of any mental health professional who would call veganism an eating disorder by definition.

 

[nomadthethird]

I don't wanna fan the flames - I think you're all agreeing with each other but not kinda noticing yet, but don't babies and growing kids need a certain amount of fat for their brains to develop? Can this be gotten on a vegan diet? This is coming from someone who was vegan for years so I'm not anti-it, just wondering out loud about what the research says now.

Yes, not to mention amino and fatty acids that are harder (though not impossible) to get through non-animal-derived sources.

All I did was mention the fact that there are some psychologists who red-flag veganism as a disordered form of eating...I even admitted that this is controversial. !!! I was a vegetarian, and got a lot of shit for that, so trust me I know how it is to hear annoying arguments from people about why you should be eating the typical American way. I'm supposed to be ketogenic now, though I can't possibly eat like that, and I get shit for not weighing enough. So I'm really not trying to pick on anyone for their diet. My preferred diet is the mediterranean one.

All I can say is that, anecdotally, most of my vegan friends gave it up when they ran out of large and expendable alimony checks.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I've been hearing this bit about "only rich people can afford it" forever & it's always been bullshit. sure, there are lots of affluent vegans who spend $$$ on vegan junk food & brand name "health food". that's on them, you don't have to do any of that.

we're not talking about kiwis and avocados and soy milk here, no ritzy organic produce. oatmeal, rice, peanut butter, beans, broccoli, spinach - you're telling me this stuff is expensive? I'm not saying it's the cheapest diet but certainly it's not astronomically expensive. or, if you can afford meat & eggs, then you can afford this. a bigger problem is that people don't know where or how to get good food cheaply. & that a lot of people, even in the U.S., live in places where they simply don't have access to it. but that's a problem beyond the scope of what I'm addressing.

Where are these references from? I'm guessing they're not from credible professional websites. The first one in particular sounds like the sort of bullshit some religious nut would have posted.

it's from an online dictionary of medical terms. which I suppose could be an insidious front for science-hating religious nuts, tho I doubt it.

P.S. The "average American"...

your view of the "average American" - which is clearly a euphemism the way you're using it - is a wildly distorted one. I'm kinda surprised that you, again of all people, have created this hateful Other & objectified it so badly. your view is all the cliches about how elite liberals - themselves a collection of dubious cliches - view "Middle America" lumped into one ungainly mass.

ignorant "average Americans" vs. rational professionals is a fake, bullshit dichotomy but I side w/the "average" anyway. that's not to discount scientists or science - both of which I am a big fan of - merely to challenge your ludicrous view of people you've clearly never met.

I understand you're quite touchy about psych as you'd like to go into it - but look, I'm talking about psychologists & -iatrists who charge ppl enormous sums of $$$ to come talk to them & take their drugs. which is surely on the people paying as well. I'm not talking about psychology as used in warfare, interrogation, advertising, or a hundred other things. that's why I said the "profession of psychology".

 

[nomadthethird]

I've been hearing this bit about "only rich people can afford it" forever & it's always been bullshit. sure, there are lots of affluent vegans who spend $$$ on vegan junk food & brand name "health food". that's on them, you don't have to do any of that.

we're not talking about kiwis and avocados and soy milk here, no ritzy organic produce. oatmeal, rice, peanut butter, beans, broccoli, spinach - you're telling me this stuff is expensive? I'm not saying it's the cheapest diet but certainly it's not astronomically expensive. or, if you can afford meat & eggs, then you can afford this. a bigger problem is that people don't know where or how to get good food cheaply. & that a lot of people, even in the U.S., live in places where they simply don't have access to it. but that's a problem beyond the scope of what I'm addressing.



it's from an online dictionary of medical terms. which I suppose could be an insidious front for science-hating religious nuts, tho I doubt it.



your view of the "average American" - which is clearly a euphemism the way you're using it - is a wildly distorted one. I'm kinda surprised that you, again of all people, have created this hateful Other & objectified it so badly. your view is all the cliches about how elite liberals - themselves a collection of dubious cliches - view "Middle America" lumped into one ungainly mass.

ignorant "average Americans" vs. rational professionals is a fake, bullshit dichotomy but I side w/the "average" anyway. that's not to discount scientists or science - both of which I am a big fan of - merely to challenge your ludicrous view of people you've clearly never met.

I understand you're quite touchy about psych as you'd like to go into it - but look, I'm talking about psychologists & -iatrists who charge ppl enormous sums of $$$ to come talk to them & take their drugs. which is surely on the people paying as well. I'm not talking about psychology as used in warfare, interrogation, advertising, or a hundred other things. that's why I said the "profession of psychology".

Which people are these who I've "clearly never met"? I grew up on the far end of the lower middle class, for a while my family was on welfare, Padraig, so come again? Please, tell me about who I've never met, please, tell me more. Please, tell me what segment of society I'm from, I'd love to hear more about it.

Are you seriously trying to say that homophobia isn't rampant in the U.S.? Sounds like you're one of those privileged straights who's delightfully clueless to me.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a random sampling of psychological professionals over random sampling of the U.S. population is going to contain more homophobes? I would highly doubt it.

And what do you know about what I'd "like to go into"...I'd "like to go into" neurology or psychiatry, not "psychology"--there is a difference, but I suppose you don't realize that, either.

Paraphilias are, yes, deviations from a norm. Sort of like veganism. The extent to which this is problematic, of course, varies in the individual. Beyond that, I do not understand these strange overreactions.

Frankly, I'm sick of the "Padraig police" on every thread. This is tedious.

 

[nomadthethird]

I'm sick of how you posit yourself in this ridiculous position as if you're beyond having a political situation of your own, and any mention of any group on anyone else's part is somehow a big bad meany generalization. (Btw, you've stolen that word "Other" straight out of psychoanalytically inflected french theory...)

I don't care. I think conservative Christians are horrible and they're ruining the country. You won't make me back down from that, and I won't mitigate those claims to be more PC for your benefit.

And yes, conservative Christian homophobes DO make up a gigantic portion of the U.S. population. Check out the census statistics (of course, add a standard deviation of tons of latinos). What is it now? Still 60% plus considers themselves Bible believing Christians? It's they themselves who claim to be "average" Americans, the real Americans--remember Joe the Plumber?--I'm only using their jingoism against them.

Anyway, you seem to fit pretty well into a mess of cliches yourself, there, Padraig. Being a white, vegan, hardcore, punk, skateboard, activist, whatever, is also to have a position in this society. You seem to get awfully "touchy" yourself at the mere mention of the fact that some psychologists see veganism as problematic. Just calm down, it wasn't a personal thing, I was simply mentioning a fact.

 

[nomadthethird]

how do you know how much time any vegan spends thinking about & planning their next meal? you don't, obviously. nor does anyone else, except those people themselves. you can keep repeating "it's a disorder" but that won't make it true. or any less ridiculous.

See, like this. W.t.f.? Who repeated that? I never even said it once. I simply stated that veganism is associated with disordered eating by some psychologists, a claim that is controversial.

 

[nomadthethird]

it's from an online dictionary of medical terms. which I suppose could be an insidious front for science-hating religious nuts, tho I doubt it.

That's funny, because this is the definition I found there:

Paraphilias are problems with controlling impulses that are characterized by recurrent and intense sexual fantasies, urges, and behaviors involving unusual objects, activities, or situations not considered sexually arousing to others. In addition, these objects, activities or situations often are necessary for the person's sexual functioning. With a paraphilia, the individual's urges and behaviors cause significant distress and/or personal, social or occupational dysfunction. Someone with a paraphilia may be referred to as "kinky" or "perverted," and these behaviors may have serious social and legal consequences.

And you forgot this part from the alternate definition:

However, the cause and treatment of paraphilias are poorly understood, and treatment is rarely effective. In addition, many professionals prefer not to pathologize sexual behavior that involves only willing adults, even if the behavior might be deemed deviant in mainstream society. In cases where the behavior is potentially criminal, as in pedophilia, treatment is usually offered within the penal system

And the "psychology" that's used in "warfare" is the same kind that used in the clinic. The clinical disciplines of psychology and psychiatry are legitimate, scientific disciplines to the same extent biology, physics or stem cell research, etc. are legitimate. Their clinical insights can be generalized across a number of fields.

Frankly, I'm worried to hear someone who says they want to be a doctor spouting bullshit superstitions about how psychiatric medications or treatment modalities are somehow "less real" than other kinds.

 

[nomadthethird]

but look, I'm talking about psychologists & -iatrists who charge ppl enormous sums of $$$ to come talk to them & take their drugs.

As opposed to the general practitioners, cardiologists, surgeons, and other doctors who charge a mere pittance?

This sounds like an ignorant false dichtomy to me, kiddo.

I'm sorry, but the passive-aggressive bullshit is not going to fly.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

As opposed to the general practitioners, cardiologists, surgeons, and other doctors who charge a mere pittance?

didn't say this

Are you seriously trying to say that homophobia isn't rampant in the U.S.?

didn't say this. I could go on about the irony, having seen many gay & transsexual mates deal w/all kinds of viciousness, but what's the point. I'm just a delightfully ignorant straight. I still think equating mythical "average Americans" w/frothing homophobic lynch mobs is nonsense.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that a random sampling of psychological professionals over random sampling of the U.S. population is going to contain more homophobes?

didn't say this. neither way would surprise me.

And what do you know about what I'd "like to go into"...I'd "like to go into" neurology or psychiatry, not "psychology"

apologies. I am, in fact, aware - generally, I'm sure I'm not as up to date as you - of the differences between the three.

I'm sick of how you posit yourself in this ridiculous position as if you're beyond having a political situation of your own, and any mention of any group on anyone else's part is somehow a big bad meany generalization.

frankly dunno what this one's about at all. esp. as it's been exactly the opposite since I was 12 or so.

I don't care. I think conservative Christians are horrible and they're ruining the country...

believe it or not, not the biggest fan of conservative Christians myself. I do think you're badly, badly oversimplifying things. which is self-defeating but you're free to do it. depending on what poll you like anywhere from 25 to 70+% of Americans believe in the Bible literally. I think it's likely towards the lower end, but that's just me.

Anyway, you seem to fit pretty well into a mess of cliches yourself, there, Padraig.

I'd never deny it. you're badly off about which cliches - I'm a terrible skateboarder actually - but I suppose that's only fair.

Just calm down...

that's what I was gonna say.

and.

Frankly, I'm worried to hear someone who says they want to be a doctor spouting bullshit superstitions about how psychiatric medications or treatment modalities are somehow "less real" than other kinds.

you're putting words in my mouth again, but OK. I'm skeptical, but my mind is open. I think it's harder to prove their worth than it is for many other kinds of treatments, but not impossible. I think that certain psychiatric medications are badly overused. I'm wary of the relationship between psychiatry & the pharmaceutical industry. certainly I'm not alone in any of these feelings. the only intellectual heavy hitter I'm really familiar with is R.D. Laing. admittedly in general it's a mixed bag between serious people w/serious critiques & total wingnuts & it's important not to get the 2 mixed up (tho I reckon in spots it's a bit of a fine line). anyway, since you have f**k all to do w/med school admission I'm not gonna lose any sleep over your "worries".

 

[nomadthethird]

didn't say this

No, you didn't say it outright, but you implied that psychologists somehow billed outrageously high while other doctors did not. Well, that is very far from the case. In fact, $350/hr is on the lower end of standard billing these days--your average GP or pediatrician will bill anywhere from $80-$150 for a 10 minute consult. That puts the average hourly billing rate at around $450. So a visit to the shrink is relatively cheap. Especially compared to most other specialists, who will cost much much more (for example, an oncologist bills at anywhere from $500-$700 an hour, a surgeon in the thousands).

simplifying things

YOU were initially the one, if you'll recall, who brought "average Americans" into the discussion. It was to prove some kind of point about psychology, a point that was ignorant, groundless, and had absolutely no substance to it, but was clearly a passive-aggressive jab because you had perceived me to be somehow dissing your veganism. (I wasn't, of course, but why bother with details like that? You could always just drag the thread deeper and deeper into bullshit without actually reading what people wrote.) I only spoke of "average Americans" (in scare quotes, if you'll note) sardonically, because you had brought this bugaboo to your aid in subborning your naive realisms regarding mental illness (believe me, this is not the first time I've heard a leftist spout their bullshit about how pharmaceutical treatment modalities are a kkkapitalist conspiracy--these are the same ones who would never hesitate to dose their diabetic relative with insulin, or take Aricept if they had Alzheimer's--the oldest superstitions die hardest of all), and because naive realism has no bearing on the merit of a hypothesis.

you're putting words in my mouth again, but OK.

You're putting words in my mouth, and you have done so repeatedly in this thread, and I'm not going to sit back and let you do it this time. I've done it in so many other threads, and this time I've had it.

I'm skeptical, but my mind is open. I think it's harder to prove their worth than it is for many other kinds of treatments, but not impossible. I think that certain psychiatric medications are badly overused. I'm wary of the relationship between psychiatry & the pharmaceutical industry. certainly I'm not alone in any of these feelings. the only intellectual heavy hitter I'm really familiar with is R.D. Laing. admittedly in general it's a mixed bag between serious people w/serious critiques & total wingnuts & it's important not to get the 2 mixed up (tho I reckon in spots it's a bit of a fine line). anyway, since you have f**k all to do w/med school admission I'm not gonna lose any sleep over your "worries".

What are you skeptical about? The fact that the brain and the systems related to it are in fact a series of electro-chemical impulses, and that there are literally mountains of scientific evidence for the fact that imbalances in certain neurotransmitters are responsible or central to the mechanisms of action in several common mental illnesses? On what grounds are you skeptical? Which scientific grounds? See this sort of statement is more proof that you've bought into a bunch of superstitious bullshit naive realisms that you've picked up from god knows where--the media and the culture at large, or perhaps some Party Line. It is no more difficult to prove the efficacy of pharmaceutical treatment modalities for mental illness than it is for any other type of pharmaceutical treatment. In fact, it may even be easier in some respects compared to, for example, pharmaceutical approaches to Parkinson's or even chronic pain.

This kind of shit annoys me to no end. I can't fucking stand it. I love how people who don't even have a DAYS worth of biology are suddenly experts in neurochemistry when it comes to pharmaceuticals...but then the Nobel prize winning neurologists I've worked with spend their prize money campaigning against the naive realism/superstition that depression and related illnesses aren't organic.

I'll talk to you after four years of medical school, we'll see how "skeptical" you are about established pharmaceutical modalities--which ones in particular are you skeptical about now, btw, out of curiosity? Just for laffs.

 

[nomadthethird]

RD Laing? Are you serious?

 

[massrock]

All I did was mention the fact that there are some psychologists who red-flag veganism as a disordered form of eating...I even admitted that this is controversial.

I simply stated that veganism is associated with disordered eating by some psychologists, a claim that is controversial.

It was of course the man like GdP who said that veganism 'is' an eating disorder but you did make some statements of your own which I think needed qualifying at least.

It's not healthy to have to spend an excessive amount of your day thinking about your next meal and planning your time around what you'll be eating.

Personally, I think veganism is only feasible, easy and therefore mentally supremely healthy for people who make a shit ton of money.

As you say yourself -

Even the fact that some psychologists find veganism problematic as a lifestyle, and therefore see veganism as a type of eating disorder, has more to do with our society's tendency toward very unhealthy norms than it does with the fact that it's "bad" to avoid animal products in your diet.

I think there's an obvious ironic truth in there that you perhaps didn't intend.

But of course, different lifestyles involve different challenges, and some things may be more difficult to achieve than others depending on circumstances. People may well confront opposition, prejudice, indifference and inertia in the persuit of the life they feel is right for them. Even something like getting away from using cars can be 'problematic' in cities with bad provisions for pedestrians or cyclists. And if you want to keep fit it costs money to get good running shoes, use a gym or whatever, although again here it's really a matter of knowing what to do and being organised. So by the criteria you describe would those same psychologists consider wanting to walk or to cycle 'not healthy' or 'a problematic lifestyle' because it takes time, effort and sometimes runs 'against the grain' of society's unhealthy norms?