Vegane Kleinkinder können genauso schnell wachsen wie Allesfresser. Laut einer Studie mit 1,2 Millionen Kindern sind Zweijährige, die in veganen oder vegetarischen Haushalten aufwachsen, nicht unbedingt wachstumsbeschränkt.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2514496-vegan-toddlers-can-grow-at-the-same-rate-as-omnivores/
35 Kommentare
From the article:
„Babies born into vegan or vegetarian families may be slightly underweight in early infancy, but seem to catch up to their omnivore peers by age 2.
[Official advice generally states](https://www.nhslanarkshire.scot.nhs.uk/patient-information-leaflets/nutrition-dietetics/pil-vegans-19-19717-l/) that a well-planned vegan diet – rich in vegetables, beans, whole grains and fortified products – can provide all the nutrients needed for good [health](https://www.newscientist.com/subject/health/). But it can still be very difficult to meet a child’s growing nutritional needs, with veganism being linked to [amino acid](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2477015-vegan-diets-have-good-levels-of-key-amino-acids-but-theres-a-catch/) and [protein](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2325589-protein-from-plant-based-meat-may-be-less-well-absorbed-by-the-body/) deficiencies.
When it comes to the pros and cons of [veganism](https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/veganism/) at a young age, small studies have provided conflicting results. To address the issue on a wider scale, [Kerem Avital](https://www.bgu.ac.il/en/staffmemberslobby/kerema/) at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel and her colleagues have now analysed data on 1.2 million babies collected from national family care centres in Israel between 2014 and 2023, following records of each baby’s length, weight and head circumference from birth to 24 months.
The team then compared those growth rates to the type of [diet](https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/diet/) that the babies’ parents reported having when the infants were about 6 months old. The vast majority of the households said they were omnivorous, with just 1.2 per cent self-reporting as vegetarian and 0.3 per cent as vegan.
But this still accounted for about 18,000 babies in the vegetarian and vegan families. “Because of the massive scale of this study, even a low percentage represents a large enough number of children to be statistically significant and provide reliable evaluations,” says [Tomer Avnon](https://cris.tau.ac.il/en/persons/tomer-avnon/) at Tel Aviv University in Israel, who wasn’t involved in the study.“
Direct link to the study: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2844665](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2844665)
That’s a lot of babies!
I would assume a child would grow at normal rate given the nutritional input is the same volume of calories and protein with equal vitamin intake. No matter the food source.
Then they will fall behind after. Studies like this is dumb. It is not healthy for anyone to just eat vegetables, people have many health issues that they don’t talk about because it will hurt the cause. Many have poor energy and immune systems.
Non-vegan kids are probably just eating pasta and fries anyway.
That’s a pretty good n imo
It’s never about WHAT you eat. It’s about what you’re getting from it.
„Doesn’t necessarily have restricted growth“ means its statistically likely they will have restricted growth.
I think the problem is more people who turn to veganism/vegetarianism without looking into how to properly make up for the nutrition when they change away from meat.
I was raised vegetarian and I’m a 6’2″ female. Eventually I incorporated animal protein into my diet but I can at least provide my testimony that it didn’t stunt my growth. Unless…I was supposed to be 6’5″, in which case I’d do it again because buying clothes is hard enough as it is.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12174276/
40% of children under 5 are iron deficit anemic.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28319940/
Vegans/vegetarians are much more at risk than omnivores.
If your child is a vegetarian/vegan, remember to include iron rich sources often in their diet.
(if it’s not vegetarian also please remember to do it 🙂 )
When my youngest was having daily playdates at the age of 2-4 there was one family of vegans with 2 kids.
Of all the kids, these were the palest, thinnest, constantly sick kids. they also had multiple broken bones by the age of 10.
Do not make your kids eat vegan diets.
Weird headline. „Can grow“ and „don’t necessarily“ don’t mean anything as there is no possibility that a study could show that vegan toddlers *cannot* grow at the same rate.
„Findings This cohort study in 1 198 818 infants revealed that infants from vegan households exhibited minimal differences in mean growth compared with their counterparts from omnivorous households. However, infants from vegan households had a modestly higher odds of underweight and stunting in early infancy, although these differences diminished by age 24 months.
Meaning These findings suggest that family vegan dietary patterns may support appropriate infant growth, but further work is needed to clarify how vegan diet quality and nutritional counseling during pregnancy and infancy support optimal infant development.“
Reading through the opening, it’s saying that vegan and vegetarian diets do stunt growth early on, but that the children catch up some by age 2. Unless I’m missing something, this doesn’t really seem to suggest all that much other than „it may be fine to give children a vegan diet, but early on it does stunt growth, thought they seem to catch up after a while“.
What about amino acids and quality of development? This always seemed like the more difficult challenge. Conversely, wouldn’t growth mostly be dependent on just straight up calories and macro nutrients?
This is the most editorialized diet headline I’ve seen in a while. I get the post is just following the rules and using the articles own wording.
People „can“ smoke and never develop emphysema, they „don’t necessarily“ get cancer.
edit: That’s not at all an attempt to equate diet choices to smoking. Just why I call it editorialized.
My vegan twin boys were consistently in the 95th and 75-80th percentiles for height and weight their entire infancy. Now they are elementary-aged, the bigger one is built like a tank but not fat like most of his peers and the other is thin, but still well within the height/weight standards for his age – he’s just very, very active.
That said, it took a lot of consistent planning (and mostly home cooking without overly-processed foods) to make sure they got enough calories, protein, and healthy fats which can be tricky to do if you don’t plan your vegan diet well. Also, of course, we have to supplement with Omega-3s, B-12, and iodine since plant-based foods tend to lack those nutrients.
Makes sense, vegan diets are one of the healthiest diets in the world on average.
“Can” and “not necesarilly” are doing some heavy lifting in that title
I think the issue isn’t really the science of optimal vegan nutrition it’s the lack of education a lot of vegan parents have around neo-natal nutrition, and the lack of regulation around such formulas.
Half of India is vegetarian and there is no difference between people who eat meat vs who don’t eat in terms of growth.
There are lot of protein sources in vegetarian as well but you have to properly plan and eat them.
Really odd to lump vegan and vegetarian into the same basket given how many of animal-derived nutrients are also found in, for example, dairy products and eggs that would be absent from a vegan diet entirely.
I mean that seems obvious, the challenge is being educated enough about a proper diet to ensure there isn’t malnutrition. There are a lot of stupid people in the world who would screw this up. Personally I think it’s a silly thing to do to a child. They should eat what they want, not what your dietary dogma dictates, but to each their own.
I read „doesn’t necessarily“ to be virtually the same as „not all two year olds raised in vegan households had restricted growth“.
This is anecdotal, but I worked with a girl that was vegan, she was so low in vitamin B 12 that her blood work labs looked like she had leukaemia. A diet where you have to severely supplement vitamins freaks me out. There are probably ways to eat around this I’m sure.
From the Abstract:
>Among 1 198 818 infants (mean [SD] gestational age, 39.2 [1.5] weeks; 53.2% male), 98.5% were from omnivorous households; 0.3% from vegan households, and 1.2% from vegetarian households. Differences in early-infancy length and length-for-age z scores among dietary groups were small (World Health Organization z score ≤0.3), and stunting prevalence was similar across groups (from 7.0% in the vegan and vegetarian groups to 7.1% in the omnivorous group), while underweight was more common in infants in the vegan vs omnivorous groups (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.15-1.63]). By age 24 months, stunting prevalence declined to 3.1%, 3.4%, and 3.9% in omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan groups, respectively, with no significant differences among the groups. Underweight and overweight were also low, with no differences by dietary group at age 24 months. Mean differences for weight, length, and head circumference were clinically minor (World Health Organization z score <0.2) and diminished further in adjusted longitudinal models.[[1]](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.57798)
„Don’t necessarily“ „Can“
Relevant [previous comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/s/qK7KXhr44g) regarding plant-based diets in children:
Most parents try to raise their children in accordance with their values, and try to impart those values on their children. If you believe it is wrong to harm humans when it isn’t necessary, you will presumably teach your children not to do that, regardless of its legality. Similarly, vegan parents may opt to teach their children not to exploit, harm, or kill non-human animals when it isn’t necessary.
Some may object to this on the grounds of health and nutrition. In making these arguments, either for or against, people tend to rely on position statements from various scientific and professional organizations, which usually follow some sort of scientific review. For example, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, “the world’s largest organization of nutrition and dietetics practitioners,”[[1]](https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us) had as its 2016 position statement that:
>…appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.[[2]](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025)
While it is the case that one can find position statements opposed to the use of plant-based diets in children and adolescents, a 2023 scientific review that evaluated 32 position statements from 24 organizations since 1997 found that the majority of them hold the position that plant-based diets supplemented with vitamin B12 are healthy and appropriate across all stages of life. But:
>…specific paediatric associations caution against vegan diets for children and adolescents, citing potential harm and the lack of adequate substantiation. These criticisms in position papers frequently point to lower-quality studies and/or outdated studies. Additionally, concerns extend to comparing vegan and omnivorous diets, considering public health issues such as obesity and early stages of cardiovascular disease as well as the risk of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes.[[3]](https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15224715)
To be clear, as reading the study makes apparent, what they are saying is that the organizations that oppose the use of plant-based diets in children and adolescents tend to rely on low-quality studies and/or outdated studies to reach that conclusion.
Every dietary pattern comes with associated risks. A 2023 systematic review compared the nutrient intake and status of children and adolescents adhering to plant-based diets with those consuming meat. The authors concluded:
>In all diets, there were risks of inadequate intakes of vitamin D and calcium. Children consuming meat had a risk of inadequate folate and vitamin E intake; and mean fiber, [saturated fatty acids (SAFA)], and [poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)] intakes were not in line with the recommendations. Children consuming plant-based diets risked inadequate vitamin B12, iron, and zinc intakes. In contrast to vegans, vegetarian children may not meet the recommended intakes of fiber, SAFA, and possibly PUFA, but their mean intakes were more favorable than in meat-eating children.[[4]](https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15204341)
There is an inherent bias in evaluating risks of nutritional deficiencies in plant-based diets compared to more conventional meat-containing diets. As seen, the question can easily be flipped, and we can ask: what are the risks of nutritional deficiencies in meat-containing diets compared to plant-based diets? Of course, adhering the either diet doesn’t mean that you can’t plan to address these risks. It just informs us of what we may want to pay additional attention to. And we should be paying attention, vegan or not. According to one study, as of 2016 in the USA, the majority of all youth aged 2 to 19 years had poor-quality diets.[[5]](https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0878) For reference, one poll estimated that only 2 percent of youths aged 8 to 17 years eat a purely plant-based diet.[[6]](https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/faq.htm#youth)
[**References**](https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/1iemr4p/comment/maa7s43/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
What about breast milk, that’s not vegan a woman is animal after all.
„CAN“ and „Don’t Necessarily“ doing a LOT of work in this study conclusion! Very odd way of framing. This study also only looks at up to age 2, it woukd be great to track it through to 4, 6 and beyond when growth becomes less focused on nutrients provided through breast milk.
This is a bit like a study on heroin addiction and title it „Regular Heroin users not necessarily going to die of overdose, may suffer no ill effects“ after 6 months of monitoring.
“Zulfiqar Bhutta at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada, questions whether the slight variations in restricted growth that the researchers found might be a cause for concern down the line. “The small but appreciable differences in growth between the three groups could well be relevant long term, especially given evidence from elsewhere that vegan diets are associated with lower bone mineral density and micronutrient status,” he says.
He therefore cautions against interpreting the findings as reassurance that vegan and vegetarian diets are always appropriate in early life, especially in parts of the world where malnutrition is prevalent”
If you are given a nutritionally adequate diet equivalent to an omnivorous diet then their growth wouldn’t be my main concern but the development of their gut and digestive system. . . I’d be very curious to see how their digestive issues stack up against an omnivores.
The parameter in the subhead „don’t necessarily have restricted growth,“ makes it sound as if restricted growth is the norm, but they found some exceptions. In fact, restricted growth is quite rare and the difference among diets very small.
I’m disappointed that the New Scientist article didn’t include numbers for the main parameters in a study whose importance lies in having so many subjects that they could statistically detect miniscule differences.
Here is what seems the most pertinent set.
I chose „don’t have restricted growth“ as the parameter because that is the term in the headline and to show that it is by far the norm.
**Babies that don’t have restricted growth (%).**
|Diet|250 days|500 days|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Omni|98.0|99.3|
|Vegetarian|97.8|99.2|
|Vegan|97.4|99.1|
From Figure 2c, just the girls for simplicity.
The model shows that the babies started off more often underweight, and the proportion dropped fairly fast for all diets. During this early period, the babies were nursing, so the mother’s diet was the difference. Babies of vegan mothers started off slightly more often underweight. That may in part be because the mothers were older (mean 33 yrs vs 30 for omnivores).
Since overweight is the bigger public health issue today, here is that parameter. It was more prevalent than underweight. The study was in Israel, so the Mediterranean diet there probably reduces the problem a bit vs North America.
**Babies that are overweight (%)**
|Diet|250d|500d|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Omni|2.8|4.1|
|Vegetarian|2.4|3.5|
|Vegan|2.8|4.1|
It’s not about vegan vs non vegan. It’s about the nutritional content of what they are eating. A well balanced diet is the important part.
Not surprised. Kids are horribly picky eaters and probably aren’t getting true balanced meals regardless of the dietary beliefs of the parents.
So yeah I’ve known enough young children from age 1 on to survive on a diet of pure anger and unbridled awe and still grow up to be okay.