Ever since I started my vegan diet the year before last, I've been looking for a good word for what my diet is called. This search was intensified when Lawrence Lessig started a similar diet and insisted that he didn't like the word "vegan" - although that is what he currently is. The problem with "vegan" is that it has some political overtones and the vegan diet includes high-calorie-low-nutrition foods such as refined starches and oils.
The problem with this is that when you request a vegan meal on a plane, you end up with something like a pile of pasta with tomato sauce - which is really not the point. The point of our diet is to eat as much healthy whole foods as possible. One of the problems with refined starches, oils and meats is that they have much less nutrition per calorie than plant-based whole foods. So while cutting down on animal proteins and "bad fats" is part of the deal, a huge part of the deal is cutting down on "blank calories".
Anyway, I've decided that the current working name for my diet is "Plant-based whole foods". If anyone can think of a better word for this, let me know. I have yet to find one.
PS If you're a PMOG player, I made a Veganism mission. The problem with "Plant-based whole foods" is that it's a bit long to make into an "ism" - Plant-based whole foodsism... hmm
![Joi Ito [logo]](/_site/img/joi-ito-logo-92x.png)



That's much better than vegan. You can even drop the 'plants-based' part because the term 'whole foods' implicitly refers to plants. No such thing as whole meat.
Speaking of pasta, what is the take in your diet for whole-grain organic pasta?
Hmm... so whole fish and stuff isn't considered whole food? If that's true, you're right.
I take a bit of whole-grain pasta, rice, oatmeal etc. but I try not to eat too much. One of the things I try to do is have as much variety as possible and sometimes with the grains I end up filling up on just that. ;-)
I'll ask my sister who've very much into these things.
But I don't know why the term "whole foods" doesn't refer to meat either. Let n be the percentage of the cow or pig that go into a hot dog. Let m be the percentage of a wheat plant that go into the so-called whole wheat bread. I'm pretty sure that n>m. There are huge parts of the wheat plant that aren't included in whole wheat flour. Everyone forgets about the stalk or the root structure. They're not traditionally edible but maybe that's only tradition. Potatoes are undigestable unless they're prepared correctly. Maybe there's a good way to prepare wheat roots too?
The term is so misleading because we rarely consume close to the whole item. Well, except perhaps for soft-shell crabs and even then that's only an accident of timing. Wait a few weeks and the shell will be inedible again.
I've been on something similar, and I always tell people that my goal is to eat things that are as close to the way God put them on the planet as possible. Perhaps you could call it the "God Diet."
-- Bret
If the point is that you don't like to sound being political / too stoic, how about "Veg-hedonism"?
Or if focusing on the "cutting down on blank calories" part, "High performance vegan"?
I would suggest calling it the green diet.
Dr. Joel Fuhrman coined the term "Nutritarian" according to Wikipedia.
"Plant-based diet" has never ever worked for me...
How about "Pure Foods Diet" - although I really like the previous suggestion, "Green Diet" or "Green Foods."
How about "Real Foods Diet" - I think I have seen that before. - hmm "realism?" that term in taken : - )
Hello there.
I'm one of these political (pronounce: ethical) vegans, infact, the term vegan does originally not refer to food at all, but to rational ethics of which vegan nutrition is one of several consequences.
So the issue is actually the other way round: (Ethical) vegans are concerned about the term vegan being colonized to describe a method of eating only.
Ethical vegans do not consider vegan dieters as vegans, as many vegan dieters wear wool, silk, leather or consume avoidable products known to have been tested on animals. Since veganism encompasses things beyond food, the usage of vegan for food only creates mixed messages. I just recently learned this when I politely asked for a vegan chair not covered with skin, and got the reply "well you're not suppose to eat it". It was funny, in a way, and in a way not.
We actually dislike having to use the adjective ethical in front of vegan to explain our status, as that is a symptom of how much veganism has been colonized to mean other things. Vegan dieting has a motivation based in self-advantage (health), while veganism has a purely altruistic motivation. The Wikipedia entry does not fully represent these differentiations, infact, many lifestyle vegans from the leftist hipster scene would attack me for "claiming vegan equates ethics". They've been most aggressive in appropriating veganism as a leftist teenage trend, and they got tattoos to prove it :-)
So we fully support and appreciate when vegan dieters who don't follow vegan ethics look for their own term.
As for the aptest term itself, difficult, since English happens to be not my primary language. Most vegan dieters I know who eat a plant based diet for health reasons call themselves health vegans. It's not optimal, as it suggests that a standard, balanced vegan diet is not healthy. Which is what many people believe. Many people believe even that a well planned vegan diet is not healthy. Which can be true, if you got the wrong plan:-) This can happen easily, the net is brim-full with misinformation around the vegan diet, to be able to sort facts from distortion one almost needs to acquire information on par with the knowledge of a nutritionist. The actual vegan diet is much simpler to do healthy.
Vegan foodist sounds off a bit or raises mental images of a grocery for vegan delicatessen.
Plant based whole foods diet is correct but quite a mouthful. Instead of describing your diet, describe yourself. Vegan dieter already focuses on the diet, and it makes clear that you are not a vegan, but a dieter. And since the focus is on diet, logic implies that health plays a role without being specifically mentioned. This description is sympathetic to (ethical) vegans as well.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with eating something containing starch. Unless of course you only eat starch. A plate full with vegan noodles and tomato sauce, if done right, may not be hugely nutritious (it actually is, because of the tomatoes), but nevertheless contains a very important nutrient: enjoyment. One should never underestimate the sensual aspects of eating, and to me, nothing can be as sensual as vegan nutrition, knowing that all avoidable harm has been excluded. Noodles from grain like wheat should only be avoided by people who are intolerant to/of gluten, a protein. People who have such serious sensibilities should discuss alternatives to gluten containing foods with a nutritionist.
I even bake white bread, almost a heresy in Germany, the land of many breads. But I do it with a twist. I dejuice like three carrots and use the juice as well as the pulp, and use soy milk instead of water to make the dough. I also use an extra cube of bakers yeast, because bakers yeast is a nutrition bomb. It makes a very fluffy, toast bread like bread, but not white of course but with a tint like cake. Sometimes, before baking, I wetten the risen dough and sprinkle a mild bakers soda on top as well as some salt. It gives the bread a pretzel kink.
That, and my with waterbath-heated reduced to thicken, hazelnut-chocolate-vanilla-soymilk spread is something which will bring the summer back:-)
Actually, I'm going to have that right now.
Cheers, Ava