WebMD reports:

In the July issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, German researchers tracked 174 apparently healthy people living in Germany and the Netherlands.

They found that 92% of the vegans they studied -- those who ate the strictest vegetarian diet, which shuns all animal products, including milk and eggs -- had vitamin B12 deficiency.

That article refers to this study that states:

Of the 3 groups, the vegans had the lowest vitamin B-12 status. In subjects who did not consume vitamins, low holotranscobalamin II (< 35 pmol/L) was found in 11% of the omnivores, 77% of the LV-LOV group, and 92% of the vegans.

This other study says:

Higher rates of deficiency were reported among vegans compared with vegetarians and among individuals who had adhered to a vegetarian diet since birth compared with those who had adopted such a diet later in life.

Are the vast majority of Vegans Vitamin B12 deficient?

  • 1
    I posted the links so that you can get some pointers from related research. B12 deficiency has to be defined in some way, it may be the case that levels for optimal health should be quite a bit higher than the levels were overt deficiency starts. This means that studies that look into homocysteine levels, and more generally mortality rates are also important. So, basically, you are tackling two problems at once, it's not just how many vegans are below some B12 level, but also how one should choose this level. – Count Iblis May 3 '16 at 2:03
  • 4
  • 1
    @RPBCL: I think we might be at cross-purposes. When you ask a question, we ask nicely for some links to notable claims to show this is a real claim people make, and to make sure the OP hasn't merely misunderstood a joke or other claim. Those links don't have to be to studies. Newspaper articles, popular tweets, political speeches, etc, are all good fodder. (In answers, we expect much better quality sources.) – Oddthinking May 3 '16 at 3:30
  • 1
    Because you have done a good job at researching the info already, you have set a high standard for the answers. They have to provide better references than what you've already provided to support/refute the claim. – Oddthinking May 3 '16 at 3:36
  • 2
    @RPBCL: No, it isn't a bad thing at all, but I think the chance of you getting an answer is lower - you already found the two obvious papers that would normally be sufficient to provide an answer. – Oddthinking May 3 '16 at 5:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .