This review draws from 204 studies, 20 of which you have cherrypicked one-line statements from. There are more studies. How many would be an "enough" number to

This review draws from 204 studies, 20 of which you have cherrypicked one-line statements from. There are more studies. How many would be an "enough" number to convince you that it is not trivial to achieve optimal health on completely meatless diet? My point is that there are many vegetarians and vegans in imperfect health and lacking certain vitamins / minerals. To make a blanket statement that they are all doing it wrong would be to fall into "No true vegetarian" fallacy. Complexity of course exists, but not in the dishonest sense that you implied in your initial comment. What I am telling you, and anyone else that is listening, is that as of 2009 experts in the field have concluded that it is absolutely practical to be healthy on a well planned meatless diet, notional doctor and newspaper strawmen be damned. So at least you agree that complexity exists. My disagreement lies in that I do not think it is "absolutely practical" to be healthy on a meatless diet. Your own words "well planned" suggest that there is an expectation for a person to be aware of all potential deficiencies one can experience on a meatless diet, and to have enough nutritional knowledge to plan ones diet around these deficiencies. While possible, it is not something I expect from an average person to do. An average Western person, unfortunately, does not even have enough knowledge in nutrition to keep a healthy weight, which is a much easier task compared to tracking micronutrients. A practical thing would be to include at least some meat (I agree that most people in the west eat more than strictly necessary) and to avoid a lot of overhead, unless one really wants to study the subject.