PERSONAL HEALTH  
AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 93

Health Experts Make a Perverse Push for Fat-Rich, Red Meat Diets

Most dietitians say people already have too much protein in their diets. So why is increased meat consumption being promoted in medical journals?
December 9, 2008  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Personal Health headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

Would a medical journal publish an article pushing for a higher recommended dietary allowance of protein from an author whose e-mail address used to be smiller@beef.org?

The Journal of the American Medical Association did in its June 25 issue this year in an article titled "The Recommended Dietary Allowance of Protein: A Misunderstood Concept."

In its Oct. 15 issue, it had to print a correction stating that author Sharon L. Miller was "formerly employed by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association" and author Robert R. Wolfe received money from the Egg Nutrition Center, National Dairy Council, National Pork Board and Beef Checkoff through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Oops. 

The Cattlemen's Beef Association flack Miller and Robert R. Wolfe, a professor of geriatrics at the Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, have a paper trial of junk food science articles funded by Big Food.

The dairy industry funded their Protein Metabolism in Response to Ingestion Pattern and Composition of Proteins (Journal of Nutrition, 2002), Miller's New Frontiers in Weight Management (Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2002 April), and her Dietary Calcium and Dairy Modulation of Adiposity and Obesity Risk (Nutrition Reviews, 2004 April).

The Beef Association funded Wolfe's Dietary Protein Intake Impacts Human Skeletal Muscle Protein Fractional Synthetic Rates After Endurance Exercise (American Journal of Physiology -- Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2005 October), and the Danish Meat Association and the Danish Dairy Board sponsored his talk at the Ninth Nordic Nutrition conference in Copenhagen in June 2008.

The talk was on guess what? Protein's crucial role in weight management and satiety!

As director of the Center for Translational Research in Aging and Longevity at the University of Arkansas, Wolfe leads a tireless crusade against the red meat deficiency he and Beef Association see in the elderly.

How many of his "more meat" articles -- Optimal Protein Intake in the Elderly (Clinical Nutrition, 2008 Oct. 27) (with Miller), Role Of Dietary Protein in the Sarcopenia of Aging (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2008 May), The Recommended Dietary Allowance for Protein May Not Be Adequate for Older People to Maintain Skeletal Muscle (Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 2001 June 5), Aging Does Not Impair the Anabolic Response to a Protein-Rich Meal (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007 August), and Seniors Need More Protein-Rich Food to Decrease Muscle Loss (Medical News Today, 2007) -- have the Beef Association's hoof prints on them?

And Wolfe does not restrict his nostrums to the elderly.

He presided over the infusion with endotoxin of 18 laboratory pigs -- "until the pulmonary arterial pressure reached a pressure similar to that found in trauma victims" -- to reach the conclusion, after killing them and removing their lungs, "that the common practice of providing calories in the form of polyunsaturated [non-red neat] fatty acids to critically ill patients carries the risk of being detrimental to lung function" (Nutrition, 2002 July-Aug. 18).

Yes, the animals died from a saturated -at deficiency! Not from the "risks" perpetrated by Wolfe, et al.

Of course, most people know by now that red meat is a rich and varied source of cancer and cardiovascular disease which is as good for you -- and as necessary -- as cigarettes.

Which is why Big Meat is running scared.

Ninety-five percent of "Registered dietitians reported they believe people already get too much protein in their diet," says the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in its October 2008 quarterly update.

This indicates the need "for widespread dissemination of the scientific evidence supporting the role of protein in optimal health in order to alter the current misperceptions  about protein in the diet," say the Cattlemen.

It also explains Wolfe's fool's errand to JAMA in which he wrote (before a correction was run), "A variety of studies have shown levels of protein intake above the RDA benefiting muscle mass, strength, and function, bone health, maintenance of energy balance, cardiovascular function and wound healing," probably referring to his own work.

Maybe journals need to see e-mails that read @onthetake.org. 


Martha Rosenberg is a columnist and cartoonist who frequently writes about the impact of the pharmaceutical, food and gun industries on public health. A former medical copywriter, her work has appeared in the Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune, as well as on the BBC and in the original National Lampoon.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Personal Health headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: health, diet, meat, red meat, protein, saturated fat

comments COMMENTS ( 93 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

"Variety of Studies have shown"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: free woman on Dec 10, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many times is that, or a similar pharase, used to promote something as fact that has very little to back it up. And even when there are studies cited regarding some of the advertisements posing as science, the conclusions are often skewed far from what the study really found.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Wow, organizations pushing specific diets?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beck on Dec 10, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who would have thunk it?

You know, the grass-fed beef from the farmer's market has so little fat, you have to be careful how you cook it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You know, "the grassfed beef"... Posted by: ABetterFuture

Comments are closed-

RE: If I wanted to stay fat...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: donl51 on Dec 11, 2008 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I said screw that food pyramid as well,also said screw that tasteless lean beef as well,I eat pretty much what I want,but more or less count calories...keep a little book..don't overendulge,was lucky that I was never into pastries and candy...lost weight,feel good,concidering I'm handicapped!..couldn't care less what the dietician claims....like your last line Eddie...good one!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Way to go Eddie
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harpy on Dec 11, 2008 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The food pyramid is a disaster for me. I just can't tolerate all that starch in my diet, but I can tolerate meat and non-starchy veggies. I eat bread, potatoes, etc, my weight starts shooting up and taking it off is harder than putting it on. The starches will also throw you into metabolic syndrome. Most dietiticians just repeat what the corn and wheat industry forced into textbooks in the late 70's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Solid simple advice
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michel on Dec 11, 2008 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only real sustainable diet is a healthy one. A well rounded diet that is based on moderation. If you are a vegetarian paying particular attention to food combining is important. If you include meat in your diet..be reasonable and keep it low fat and as drug free as possible. The key is to avoid extremes. As well, activity level is crucial. You will not be healthy if you are not active. As we all age this is an essential piece of the puzzle. This is a simple protocol...why, in our country is it so hard for many folks to follow???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? Posted by: henderson
» RE: Why? Posted by: Michel
» No matter - it's still cheaper Posted by: truthlover

Comments are closed-

Meat is OK but . . .
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eksommer on Dec 11, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the problem is how much we eat, how divorced we are from the process of obtaining meat, and how horribly the animals are treated. Moderation, as many posters have said, is the key. Balanced nutrition, a little humanely raised meat once and a while, and EXERCISE are what keep us healthy. We're omnivores. Read Michael Pollan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We're omnivores... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: We're omnivores... Posted by: SENILEBIKER

Comments are closed-

Medical Journals = Medical Commercials
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gravitas on Dec 11, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because just like MSM, medical journals are increasingly bought and sold! We already know that many drug articles are ghost written by pharma, then they pay some "expert" in the field to put their name on it. For that matter, so many of the obesity scare studies are sponsored by pharma too. Nothing can be trusted completely, especially not modern medicine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The acid/alkaline approach is easy and effective
[Report this comment]
Posted by: floridahank on Dec 11, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently started to follow a typical
alkaline/acid chart for selecting my foods
and have noticied more energy and getting
a greater variety of what I can eat.
Eliminating the "junk" type foods and some
other foods that many people typically eat
regularly will help your immune system at
the same time.
Check out why a alkaline/acid balance makes
sense, it works for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've seen that one Posted by: medstudgeek

Comments are closed-

I am a Firm Believer...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Dec 11, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...in moderation in all things --including moderation.

A little red meat isn't going to kill you, and neither is a little bit of candy and pastries. It's overindulgence and inactivity that is the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» True, as far as it goes Posted by: BobKincaid

Comments are closed-

Eat It Up
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on Dec 11, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People act as if meat is the only good source of protein. You can get complete proteins from combinations of nuts, beans, soy, certain grains, certain fruits and vegetables, (and for the non-vegan vegetarians) milk products and eggs.

I'm a vegetarian (not a vegan...yet) who gets more than enough protein. I have absolutely no craving for meat at all. I don't believe in pushing my lifestyle choices on anyone else, but it bothers me that people are blissfully unaware of the amount of suffering that goes into their steak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: at It Up Posted by: somegirl
» RE: at It Up Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: at It Up Posted by: Starfall Deception
» Raw meat, yum! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Raw meat, yum! Posted by: TheLimit
» Meat efficient, ha ha ha! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Meat efficient, ha ha ha! Posted by: TheLimit

Comments are closed-

Dieticians are not researchers.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kad on Dec 11, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dieticians, as part of their ciricula, are not taught how to do research, nor how to read and interpret research. They are taught the standard formulary, based on ADA idealogy, science be damned.

Additionally, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a proven direct causal link between Saturated fat and heart disease. And before you bring up some tired epidemiological study, correlation does not equal causation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

people have different food needs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: somegirl on Dec 11, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why is this so hard to understand?

if you are so attached to how you eat, and think everyone has to be like you, there is something really wrong with your relationship to food and other people as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I gave up meat a long time ago and am enjoying lentils.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 11, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least give lentils a chance. There's plenty of digestible protein in those foods and the blood stream absorbs it rather well more than animal protein. If you have to eat meat though, I'd recommend the grass fed type or what some call the pasture raised type.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Not Becoming an Evangelical or A Vegan !
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 11, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I repect those who choose to live those doctrines, but I reject being told I must convert otherwise I'm a 'sinner' of some sort.
I am a Huge Animal advocate,but my focus is on Humane treatment and good animal husbandry practices (health & welfare). Reality dictates that Veganism will Not sweep the World. So to waste energy on that only Crusade is counterproductive to making gians in areas worthy of the effort.
Having Worked in labor intensive occupations (Horse Farms,Warehousing,Restuarant) I know when my energy requirements increase so does my desire for Meat. when I am in a less active job, I eat meat far less, or even have an interest. Fact for all the 'naturalists'...the human digestive system is exactly the same as the Swines. We are designed to be Omnivores...We have no Cecum or additional 'Stomaches' to naturally produce microbes which provide protein when they die. We must ingest Proteins. Granted Legumes have protein, but meat has far more in density- thus a far better source.
As for the numerous health riskes you listed, what are naturaly occuring, and which are related to producing methods, standards and forms of Preparation? To avoid food borne illness, it is suggested meat be cooked to 'Well'. However there is also evidence that 'Well' adds Carcinogens. So isn't food safety better served if Good sound Animal Husbandry practices prevail in Ag to begin with..those reducing the need to cooked meat into shoe leather?
Are you a social liberal in other areas, which you gladly find 'acceptable' but when it comes to eating meat, you are thrown into a philosphical frenzy. Isn't your reactions sometimes as uncompromising (UnLiberal) as the Religious Right?
I eat meat, get over it and help Us work to assure Safe, sound, Humane animal care regardless of their future status.It is far more important to human health than trying to legislate Morality.
I appreciate the investigative techniques of PETA, but am repulsed by some of their tactics.
I support the USHS (donations & adaptions), but am disappointed with their lack of legislative initatives. I for One am a Avid proponent of the Return to Family Farming- competition requires quality, thus requires good animal husbandry methods. although I would have to be starving to eat a dog, I would not deny a child who's only source of food is dog. When it's between the Oxen which plows your fields or the dog begging at your table, I'm guesing the Ox will see another day.And it should since it is intrical in the survival of the family.
I have not seen PETA nor USHS push to require Licensing of Breeders or their 'Stock' in the US. In some European countries Horses must meet requirement to be allowed to reproduce. this assures that haphazard breeding or the breeding of sub standard animals is not proliferated.
If you want to stop the 'Puppy Mills', or the shipment of dogs to the phillipines or horses to Canada for slaughter....Eliminate the Supply. Licensing fees would deter many novice or greedy breeders.
Fee for Eval, fee for Licenses (breeder & animal),Renewal fees and Penalities.
The Up side to this would not only be pushing adhoc breeding out of the market, It would provide a 'Certification' of Breeders and their breeding stock. it would also help increase income for DVM's and the States (feds).As an ower of 2 Breeding horses, I would Love a 'Blue ribbon' ranking to help validate myself as a breeder of horses and my 'product' as high quality.Cha Ching. Not to mention the reduction of the supply of horses to compete with.
Animal Advocates could build a their Base,thus Change things for the better for man & Beast If only they would stop trying to 'convert' everyone.
come on it's about as productive as Christians trying to convert people to ONLY evangelical...It ain't gonna happen, even if we basically agree with many of your principles.
Your goal is Unattainable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Again, purplegirl....... Posted by: henderson

Comments are closed-

Serious writing deserves serious proof-reading
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BobKincaid on Dec 11, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not trying to be a grammar Nazi here. This is an entirely serious topic, exposing at least one facet of the ongoing con that is corporatized research.

As such, please let your work have a fighting chance. Proof-read not once, not twice, but three or more times before you give your article to AlterNet for publication. "Paper trial?" Within the context of your assertion, that had real semantic disconnect.

Secondly, please be aware of your word choices. "[M]ost dietitians believe . . ." Is being a dietitian now a religious calling, or is it grounded in scientific principles?

The pervasive use of the "believe" word is a part of the pernicious effect of the Religion Industry on our national discussions. I personally don't give a jitterbugging damn what dietitians, beauticians or teevee electricians "believe," because believing is notoriously unreliable. I care what a dietitian, in this context knows.

If you're going to do fact-based reportage, please use reality-based words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Following up Posted by: BobKincaid

Comments are closed-

is killing for food natural?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zoologist Desmond Morris makes a case for vegetarianism in his 1967 book, The Naked Ape:

"It could be argued that, since our primate ancestors had to make do without a major meat component in their diets we should be able to do the same. We were driven to become flesh eaters only by environmental circumstances, and now that we have the environment under control, with elaborately cultivated crops at our disposal, we might be expected to return to our ancient feeding patterns."

In The Human Story, edited by Marie-Louise Makris (1985), we read:

"...recent studies of their teeth reveal that the Australopithecines did not eat meat as a regular part of their diet, and were mainly peaceful vegetarians, rather like chimps or gorillas. The popular image of the murderous ape is now as extinct as the Australopithecines themselves."

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores "have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth--showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

"Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

"Man instinctively is not carnivorous," explains Dr. Latto. "...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do; people enjoy doing it; they don't feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

"I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening."

Author R.H. Weldon writes in No Animal Food:

"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."

As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions." More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded:

"Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But, but... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: But, but... Posted by: TheLimit

Comments are closed-

is killing for food natural? (cont'd)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:

"This is quite an admirable argument. It explains practically everything; why we do not eat each other, except under conditions of unusual stress; why we may kill certain other animals (they are, in the order of nature, food for us); even why we should be kind to pets and try to help miscellaneous wildlife (they are not naturally our food). There are some problems with the idea that an order of nature determines which species are food for us, but an examination of human history indicates the broad outlines of just such an order, though inhibitions against eating certain species may vary from culture to culture.

"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.

"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.

"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usually placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.

"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.

"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."

In his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Peter Singer writes:

"Killing an animal is in itself a troubling act. It has been said that if we had to kill our own meat we would all be vegetarians. There may be exceptions to that general rule, but it is true that most people prefer not to inquire into the killing of the animals they eat.

"Very few people ever visit a slaughterhouse; and films of slaughterhouse operations are rarely shown on television...Yet those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from this or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy.

"If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?"

Peter Singer concludes in Animal Liberation that "by ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation, too."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: is killing for food natural? (cont'd) Posted by: Starfall Deception
» Some like it hot! Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

D.D. Delaney, Norfolk, VA
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thinkingdog on Dec 11, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most doctors, I'll postulate, are meat-eaters with little time for self-reflection or concern for the many health or humane issues connected with raising and consuming meat from factory farms. That's my experience, as a vegetarian who had health issues over the past year and had little choice but to engage with the American medical profession. There, my vegetarianism was considered more as a handicap to be compensated for with higher doses of pharmaceutical drugs than as a factor in explaining why I wasn't more sick than I was or why my recovery from surgery surprised them for its rapidity. I will say that they didn't urge me to change my diet. They just complained a bit that it stood in the way of their plan for my treatment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I always liked "vegetable-tarianism"...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BreeMass on Dec 11, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...as opposed to strict vegetarianism. This is a term I discovered in a wonderful book clled "Growing Vegetables West of the Cascades". A vegetabletarian bases their diets on plant foods, prefereably grown at home (although certainly not necessary for those of us who don't have a grow at home option) with meats, dairy products, eggs, etc used wisely and sparingly. My grandparents have stuck to this type of diet their entire lives and they are now 85 and 83, ride bikes everyhwere and play tennis four times a week. I think the key is everything in moderation with the bulk of your diet coming from plant sources. We don't all have to be vegans to be healthy, although those who choose veganism are fine by me.

There are a few reasons I don't like to eat much meat. Firstly, I think less meat is needed in our culture strictly for the enivronmental benefits of eating less meat. We don't have to cut it out altogether, but reducing it would be a good start. Secondly, think of all the grain that goes to feed animals raised for food. Many studies over the last thirty years have indicated that if the US and Japan reduced their meat intake by just 10-15%, the resulting savings in grain could easily be diverted and go a long way towards feed the (entirely too many) starving people in the world. Thirdly, the meat industry is disgusting and unhealthy in its treatment of the animals we eat. If we are going to raise them for food, could they at least be treated kindly and humanely?

And just think, by reducing your intake of meat and switching the basis of your diet to much cheaper than meat vegetables, you can easily afford to buy the more expensive, hormone-free, antibiotic-free, free-range hunamely treated meats available in co-ops, farmer's markets, etc.

Just an idea, not trying to preach to anybody, but that's my two cents...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

caronome
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bayardtom on Dec 11, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a knotty issue. Vegetarians, myself among them, know that one feels better when no animal protein is consumed. One of the biggest problems that all meat eating people have is the consumption of too much protein. The kidneys are overtaxed with an animal based diet.

If everyone would read the books by John Robbins, they would swear off meat forever. Try it: Diet for a new America, May all be Fed, Reclaiming our Health and The Food Revolution.

Another compelling reason for swearing off meat and other animal products such as dairy, is the fact that if we stopped using the grains and soybeans for feeding the animals you eat, we could feed everyone on the planet and be free of the hunger that plagues the world. That alone would seem to make a difference for all of us.

I know that this subject is not going to go away, mainly because of the food industries that control the media, but it is certainly worthy of a lot more thoughtful discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

excerpts from Please Don't Eat the Animals
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

---Albert Einstein

"Each year, the meat industrial complex abuses and butchers nearly 9 billion cows, pigs, sheep, turkeys, chickens, and other innocent, feeling animals just for the enjoyment of consumers. Each year, nearly 1.5 million of these consumers are crippled and killed prematurely by heart failure, cancer, stroke, and other chronic diseases that have been linked conclusively with the consumption of these animals. Each year, millions of other animals are abused and sacrificed in a vain search for a 'magic pill' that would vanquish these largely self-inflicted diseases."

---Alex Hershaft, PhD, president, Farm Animal Reform Movement

When analyzing 8,300 deaths in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany among 76,000 men and women in five different, large studies, researchers concluded that vegetarians have a 24 percent reduction in death from heart disease.

Similarly, in the famous Oxford Vegetarian Study, where 6,000 vegetarians were compared with 5,000 meat-eaters over nearly two decades, scientists found that the rate of death from heart disease was 28 percent lower in vegetarians than in meat-eaters.

One study analyzed eighty scientific studies in leading medical journals. The analysis found that vegetarians had lower blood pressure, and were less likely to suffer from stroke, heart attack, and kidney failure.

A large German study of nearly 2,000 vegetarians found that deaths from heart disease were reduced by over one-third, and that heart disease itself was far less than that of the general population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But, but, Posted by: WhuThe?!?

Comments are closed-

excerpts from Please Don't Eat the Animals (cont'd)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

Another large study examined the coronary artery disease risk of young adults ages 18 to 30 and vegetarians were found to have much higher levels of cardiovascular fitness and a greatly reduced risk of heart disease.

"The process of gradual blocking of the coronary arteries begins not in adulthood but in childhood...and the main cause of this arteriosclerosis is the steadily increasing amount of fat in the American diet, particularly saturated animal fats such as those found in meat, chicken, milk and cheeses. If there was another disease that caused half a million deaths a year, you can be sure that the public would be acutely aware of the danger, and that the cure or prevention would be universally practiced."

---Dr. Benjamin Spock, author, child expert

"I don't understand why asking people to eat a well-balanced vegetarian diet is considered drastic, while it is medically conservative to cut people open and put them on powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs for the rest of their lives."

---Dr. Dean Ornish, author, Reversing Heart Disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer. Vegetarians have a 20 to 30 percent reduced risk of having a stroke. Stroke, like heart disease, is associated with diets high in saturated fats, and the vegetarian diet is naturally low in these fats.

The Oxford Vegetarian Study found cancer mortality to be 39 percent lower among vegetarians when compared with meat-eaters. The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer found vegetarians suffer 40 percent fewer cancers than the general population.

Studies have shown that decreasing a woman's animal fat intake can reduce the chances that she will die from breast cancer. A large-scale, long-term study in the Netherlands found a powerful connection between the amount of animal fat consumed and the rate of prostate cancer. A review of a dozen studies found dietary fat strongly correlated with prostate cancer.

Ovarian, uterine, and endometrial cancers have all been shown to be strongly correlated to the amount of animal fat in one's diet, and vegetarian women have significantly lower rates of these cancers.

"The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wrs of this century, all the natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined."

---Dr. Neal Barnard, Executive Director, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

"Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rate of coronary disease of any group in the country. They have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40 percent of our cancer rate."

---William Castelli, MD, Director, Framingham Heart Study

"Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

---Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief, American Journal of Cardiology

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Purely Vegetarian Diets Contain No Vitamin B-12
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Dec 11, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Therefor vegetarians must take supplements, either made in a chemical plant or obtained from brewer's yeast (not a common food source in any primitive society). Stone Age humans did not have pharmaceutical plants to produce these, so they would have died rather quickly without meat.

Humans have canine teeth as well as hydrochloric acid and proteolytic enzymes in our digestive tract specifically for digesting meat.

My conclusion from this it that vegetarianism is an unnatural diet for humans, not what we evolved (or were created, if you will) to consume.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very bad argument Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Very bad argument Posted by: TheLimit

Comments are closed-

If we weren't suoosed to eat cows, they wouldn't be made out of steak!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 11, 2008 3:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granted, there are some problems I see with how it's grown sometimes--the practice of feeding cow and sheepflesh back to the has led to BSE. Now, who'd have thunk that massive cannibalism of our livestock would have negative consequences?

Oh yeah, we could have looked at a third world population for that inference--kuru, anyone? Hello? "Smart animals don't eat brains!"

Beyond some obvious public heath risks that have been addressed and should be monitored, I see no problem with doing what the Homo genus has been doing forever: enjoying a moderate amount of protein-rich, calorie dense, and oh-so-delicious sizzling cuts of meat

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Vegetarianism and Vitamin B-12
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 3:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are not natural herbivores. The human body can't break down cellulose, the principle component of plant foods (though it does serve a purpose as dietary fiber). This is the reason we can't graze or live on grass. Anatomically, we resemble the other primates (frugivores), whose diet is mostly vegetarian. We're meant to live predominately, if not entirely, upon plant foods. Only vitamin B-12 cannot be obtained from plant foods. Predators are found in nature, but so are cannibalism and rape. Killing other animals for food, in this sense, really is an ethical issue, not a "dietary" issue.

Keith Akers writes in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983): "There is no question that lacto-ovo-vegetarians easily obtain enough vitamin B-12; dairy products and eggs are generous suppliers of vitamin B-12. The controversy pertains only to those who live on plant foods and do not eat any animal foods at all--the 'total vegetarians' or 'vegans.'...The evidence shows, however, that there are numerous sources of vitamin B-12 other than animal foods, and that vitamin B-12 is not a particularly difficult vitamin to get. In short, the Great Vitamin B-12 Controversy, like the protein controversy, is largely generated by lack of information concerning already available research data.

"Only incredibly small quantities of vitamin B-12 are thought to be needed in the diet. According to the National Research Council, 3 micrograms daily will meet the body's requirements. but Victor Herbert, a noted authority on the subject, puts the requirement at 0.1 micrograms, making even the National Research Council's microscopic figure 30 times in excess of the actual need."

John Robbins, author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987), says that vitamin B-12 is found naturally in the environment around us; on the dirt on a carrot pulled out of the ground, in rainwater, etc., but we live in a sanitized society, removed from nature. Keith Akers similarly observes:

"Vitamin B-12 has been found in rainwater and in many plant foods. In small quantities, Vitamin B-12 has been found either in or on various foods such as the roots and stems of tomatoes, cabbage, celery, kale, broccoli, leeks, and the leaves of kohlrabi. An ounce of the roots of leeks, beets, and other vegetables will provide 0.1 to 0.3 micrograms of B-12, which is more than a day's requirement.

"There are other plant foods which provide 'massive' quantities of vitamin B-12--'massive,' that is, in relation to human requirements for the vitamin. These include nutritional yeast, tempeh, seaweed, algae, kelp, and fermented soy sauces. The human liver can store vitamin B-12 for years, so once it is ingested from one of these sources, one can go for long periods of time without having to worry about a source of B-12."

The Garden of Eden was vegan, but veganism as an historical trend is a recent phenomenon.

The Vegan Society was formed in England in 1944.

In his 1979 book, Vegetarianism: A Way of Life, Dudley Giehl writes that some Egyptian priests were vegetarian to help them with their vows of celibacy and that they avoided eggs and milk, which they called "liquid flesh." Giehl also writes that Leonardo da Vinci was a vegan, out of ethical concern for animals.

In his 1923 book, The Natural Diet of Man, Adventist physician Dr. John Harvey Kellogg writes:

"The Ladrone Islands were discovered by the Spaniards around 1620. There were no animals on the islands except birds, which the natives did not eat. The natives had never seen fire, and they lived entirely on plant foods--fruits and roots in their natural state. They were found to be vigorous, active, and of good longevity."

Americans should considerably reduce--if not eliminate entirely--their consumption of animal products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How's about.... Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

Anybody Feel Like Talking About the Actual Article?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: grumble-bum on Dec 11, 2008 6:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like we've all gone off on our usual individual dogmatic rants. & yes, I'm looking at you, vasumurti.

I'll try to spare you all my personal talking points (thoughtful Omnivore, in the natural/sustainable foods business, etc.) for the moment, & get to what bugs me about this article. You know, the one we all read.

The author's argument would appear to be that 1.) some people published in scientific & medical journals are acting at the direct behest of various industries, & 2.) as a result, not only are their results suspect, but anyone who's personal experience or (in this case) dietary choices coincide with said results is also somehow tainted. Finally, she seems to be pushing her own agenda (presumably pure because no one else has been known to be funded to reach the same conclusion?), namely 3.) that red meat is categorically bad.

I won't really touch on #3, simply because it's a highly questionable assertion, that obviously tends to get us all off track. Suffice it to say that there is plenty of legitimate, non-Mass-Ag-funded research that refutes it (presuming moderation & informed consumption). Also, I promised I wouldn't grind my own axe... Which is proving difficult.

Back to this sloppy, "bad apples spoil the bushel" argument: Let's use me as an example. I sell quality, small-scale sustainable meat for a living. I care about providing my customers with food that is simultaneously well-raised & local in origin, which improves both the lives of the animals involved & those of the end consumers (via healthier food, a healthier environment & an enriched community). I haven't read the suspect "medical" articles discussed in the article, but what if I also have reached the conclusion that there are both direct & indirect health & economic benefits to be found in eating meat? I mean, after all, I do make a living by promoting the consumption of meat (although probably in more sensible amounts). I'm directly funded by the sale of the product I endorse. Using the logic laid out in the article, I must be some monster of conflicted interest, no?

If the author had wanted to impress us, she should have given an equal look at the many oft-cited, believed-as-Gospel but increasingly questioned studies regarding the miraculous powers of soya... Funded by the producers of Soy products.

Otherwise, we're left with an article with about the same legitimacy as those that posit that all Leftists are terrorists because a handful of them sometimes break windows, or that all Christians are insane because some of them hate Gay people.

I will agree that "Big Meat is running scared", however. But not because meat can't be proven to have a place in a healthy diet, or because a few pseudo-scientists got busted trying to unnecessarily force that proof. Factory Farmers are freaking out because more & more people are getting their food from people like me & the small producers people like me promote. & eating it in smaller, healthier, more sustainable amounts.

Shit, I guess I trotted out my own colors there, after all. But at least it had something to do with the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's Not That Simple - Yet it Is
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Liberty G on Dec 12, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As stated by one person already, we are all different. That means that:
1. The same diet does not result in health for everyone.
2. Some people are more vulnerable to developing food cravings that lead to obesity and illness.

Having said this, I would tend to go more with the moderate omnivore - but recognizing that there are some very happy, healthy Vegans out there.

Part of the problem is the two major facts that are not recognized:

1. Any meat contains far more pesticide residue than any vegetable produce. The vast majority of meat sold in this country is also laced with hormones and antibiotics. All this stuff ain't good for your health - and some contributes to obesity.

2. A huge factor for many people, healthwise, is the rampant addiction to sugar and refined flour. The latter, by the way, like sugar, causes ones sugar metabolism to go a bit nuts, high, then low. For some of us, both of these result in cravings for more, as well. The connections with hypoglycemia and diabetes are obvious. Candida is a less recognized result of sugar/refined flour consumption.

Another point - despite the sarcasm about conflict of interest concerns, it is true that industry controlled/funded science is suspect.
In the case of bisphenol-A, for example, a researcher found that 100 per cent of industry studies found no harm from the chemical, but 100 per cent of independent ones reported serious problems. This is only the most dramatic story. Over and over, products have been sold for years, then the truth about their toxicity has emerged - often known but not disclosed by the manufacturer.

This does not mean that ALL industry people are dishonest - but that it is generally better to trust those without a financial interest in results.

Finally, it has been a sad fact for many years that government agencies, politically influenced and run, often cooperate with industry to conceal risk and soft-pedal regulation. To see one article on such at www.toxicsinfo.org, the website of my organization, Toxics Information Project, go to: www.toxicsinfo.org/legislation.htm and read States Sue EPA for Files on Household Pollutants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Oh you can have your meat!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blue Heron on Dec 12, 2008 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because every time I've ever had the misfortune of being near the stuff, it's always smelled like steaming offal and excrement. McDonalds is certainly a case in point. Flesh eaters are always under this misguided impression that vegetarians are deprived and sickly looking. I think humans are meant to eat something fresh every now and then. And personally, I aim to be more than a vulture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Virtual Food!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Javan on Dec 15, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you'd like to stop eating meat just watch on of those videos that show how the animals were raised and slaughtered for profits. If you have any feeling of compassion for other living beings you won't be able to eat them ever again....and you will be much healthier. You can get all the protein you need from beans, nuts and grains!

If you have ever read the book "The Secret Lives of Plants" you will know that a tomato screams electronically when sliced, but we have to eat something! Virtual food maybe, in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Virtual Food! Posted by: Cpt. Lesder Sodmier Diatribe

Comments are closed-

"Life is a Killer!"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Cpt. Lesder Sodmier Diatribe on Dec 16, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, how much we 'poor players' enjoy ourselves the delusion of, "if I simply listen to what the 'Experts' say I'll shake off the shadow of death!"
...nothing more liberating than learning of the young, healthy, wealthy (and wise) non-smoking, non-drinking, non-drug using, fruit nut and whole-grain eating individual's death!

What were his/her dying words?
1. I'm glad I did the things I wanted to do!
2. According to experts this is unhealthy!

If you chose 1. as your answer you are probably the kind of person who is little concerned with what any so-called "expert" has to say about what you should or should not consume, participate in, and enjoy. You realize that Life = Pain and that it is also meaningless and thus ours to create by choices, choices which, you also understand, are to be enjoyed through the freedom we have to both make them and enjoy them.
If you chose 2. as your answer, well, you're probably too concerned with any Authoritarianism to the extent that you can't think for yourself or create your own life (I digress). But also as to how reading this response is "bad" for you because it makes you deal with Life and not some delusion cooked up by a so-called "expert" whose getting paid to play an "expert" or, worse yet, by an actor or musician who reached their 30s and, suddenly, is also an "expert," yet one who CARES.
No amount of "expert" opinion is going to change the course of LIFE; get over yourselves!
"Come off it!" ~Alan Watts.
Signed: 14-year vegetarian cigar smoker who doesn't judge or condemn anybody for what they think, say, or do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

"Variety of Studies have shown"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: free woman on Dec 10, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many times is that, or a similar pharase, used to promote something as fact that has very little to back it up. And even when there are studies cited regarding some of the advertisements posing as science, the conclusions are often skewed far from what the study really found.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Wow, organizations pushing specific diets?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beck on Dec 10, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who would have thunk it?

You know, the grass-fed beef from the farmer's market has so little fat, you have to be careful how you cook it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You know, "the grassfed beef"... Posted by: ABetterFuture

Comments are closed-

RE: If I wanted to stay fat...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: donl51 on Dec 11, 2008 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I said screw that food pyramid as well,also said screw that tasteless lean beef as well,I eat pretty much what I want,but more or less count calories...keep a little book..don't overendulge,was lucky that I was never into pastries and candy...lost weight,feel good,concidering I'm handicapped!..couldn't care less what the dietician claims....like your last line Eddie...good one!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Way to go Eddie
[Report this comment]
Posted by: harpy on Dec 11, 2008 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The food pyramid is a disaster for me. I just can't tolerate all that starch in my diet, but I can tolerate meat and non-starchy veggies. I eat bread, potatoes, etc, my weight starts shooting up and taking it off is harder than putting it on. The starches will also throw you into metabolic syndrome. Most dietiticians just repeat what the corn and wheat industry forced into textbooks in the late 70's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Solid simple advice
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Michel on Dec 11, 2008 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only real sustainable diet is a healthy one. A well rounded diet that is based on moderation. If you are a vegetarian paying particular attention to food combining is important. If you include meat in your diet..be reasonable and keep it low fat and as drug free as possible. The key is to avoid extremes. As well, activity level is crucial. You will not be healthy if you are not active. As we all age this is an essential piece of the puzzle. This is a simple protocol...why, in our country is it so hard for many folks to follow???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why? Posted by: henderson
» RE: Why? Posted by: Michel
» No matter - it's still cheaper Posted by: truthlover

Comments are closed-

Meat is OK but . . .
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eksommer on Dec 11, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the problem is how much we eat, how divorced we are from the process of obtaining meat, and how horribly the animals are treated. Moderation, as many posters have said, is the key. Balanced nutrition, a little humanely raised meat once and a while, and EXERCISE are what keep us healthy. We're omnivores. Read Michael Pollan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We're omnivores... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: We're omnivores... Posted by: SENILEBIKER

Comments are closed-

Medical Journals = Medical Commercials
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Gravitas on Dec 11, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because just like MSM, medical journals are increasingly bought and sold! We already know that many drug articles are ghost written by pharma, then they pay some "expert" in the field to put their name on it. For that matter, so many of the obesity scare studies are sponsored by pharma too. Nothing can be trusted completely, especially not modern medicine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The acid/alkaline approach is easy and effective
[Report this comment]
Posted by: floridahank on Dec 11, 2008 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently started to follow a typical
alkaline/acid chart for selecting my foods
and have noticied more energy and getting
a greater variety of what I can eat.
Eliminating the "junk" type foods and some
other foods that many people typically eat
regularly will help your immune system at
the same time.
Check out why a alkaline/acid balance makes
sense, it works for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've seen that one Posted by: medstudgeek

Comments are closed-

I am a Firm Believer...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: popeurbanxxiii on Dec 11, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...in moderation in all things --including moderation.

A little red meat isn't going to kill you, and neither is a little bit of candy and pastries. It's overindulgence and inactivity that is the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» True, as far as it goes Posted by: BobKincaid

Comments are closed-

Eat It Up
[Report this comment]
Posted by: QQOblivion on Dec 11, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People act as if meat is the only good source of protein. You can get complete proteins from combinations of nuts, beans, soy, certain grains, certain fruits and vegetables, (and for the non-vegan vegetarians) milk products and eggs.

I'm a vegetarian (not a vegan...yet) who gets more than enough protein. I have absolutely no craving for meat at all. I don't believe in pushing my lifestyle choices on anyone else, but it bothers me that people are blissfully unaware of the amount of suffering that goes into their steak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: at It Up Posted by: somegirl
» RE: at It Up Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: at It Up Posted by: Starfall Deception
» Raw meat, yum! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Raw meat, yum! Posted by: TheLimit
» Meat efficient, ha ha ha! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Meat efficient, ha ha ha! Posted by: TheLimit

Comments are closed-

Dieticians are not researchers.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kad on Dec 11, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dieticians, as part of their ciricula, are not taught how to do research, nor how to read and interpret research. They are taught the standard formulary, based on ADA idealogy, science be damned.

Additionally, there is not now, nor has there ever been, a proven direct causal link between Saturated fat and heart disease. And before you bring up some tired epidemiological study, correlation does not equal causation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

people have different food needs
[Report this comment]
Posted by: somegirl on Dec 11, 2008 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why is this so hard to understand?

if you are so attached to how you eat, and think everyone has to be like you, there is something really wrong with your relationship to food and other people as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I gave up meat a long time ago and am enjoying lentils.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 11, 2008 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least give lentils a chance. There's plenty of digestible protein in those foods and the blood stream absorbs it rather well more than animal protein. If you have to eat meat though, I'd recommend the grass fed type or what some call the pasture raised type.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Not Becoming an Evangelical or A Vegan !
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Purple Girl on Dec 11, 2008 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I repect those who choose to live those doctrines, but I reject being told I must convert otherwise I'm a 'sinner' of some sort.
I am a Huge Animal advocate,but my focus is on Humane treatment and good animal husbandry practices (health & welfare). Reality dictates that Veganism will Not sweep the World. So to waste energy on that only Crusade is counterproductive to making gians in areas worthy of the effort.
Having Worked in labor intensive occupations (Horse Farms,Warehousing,Restuarant) I know when my energy requirements increase so does my desire for Meat. when I am in a less active job, I eat meat far less, or even have an interest. Fact for all the 'naturalists'...the human digestive system is exactly the same as the Swines. We are designed to be Omnivores...We have no Cecum or additional 'Stomaches' to naturally produce microbes which provide protein when they die. We must ingest Proteins. Granted Legumes have protein, but meat has far more in density- thus a far better source.
As for the numerous health riskes you listed, what are naturaly occuring, and which are related to producing methods, standards and forms of Preparation? To avoid food borne illness, it is suggested meat be cooked to 'Well'. However there is also evidence that 'Well' adds Carcinogens. So isn't food safety better served if Good sound Animal Husbandry practices prevail in Ag to begin with..those reducing the need to cooked meat into shoe leather?
Are you a social liberal in other areas, which you gladly find 'acceptable' but when it comes to eating meat, you are thrown into a philosphical frenzy. Isn't your reactions sometimes as uncompromising (UnLiberal) as the Religious Right?
I eat meat, get over it and help Us work to assure Safe, sound, Humane animal care regardless of their future status.It is far more important to human health than trying to legislate Morality.
I appreciate the investigative techniques of PETA, but am repulsed by some of their tactics.
I support the USHS (donations & adaptions), but am disappointed with their lack of legislative initatives. I for One am a Avid proponent of the Return to Family Farming- competition requires quality, thus requires good animal husbandry methods. although I would have to be starving to eat a dog, I would not deny a child who's only source of food is dog. When it's between the Oxen which plows your fields or the dog begging at your table, I'm guesing the Ox will see another day.And it should since it is intrical in the survival of the family.
I have not seen PETA nor USHS push to require Licensing of Breeders or their 'Stock' in the US. In some European countries Horses must meet requirement to be allowed to reproduce. this assures that haphazard breeding or the breeding of sub standard animals is not proliferated.
If you want to stop the 'Puppy Mills', or the shipment of dogs to the phillipines or horses to Canada for slaughter....Eliminate the Supply. Licensing fees would deter many novice or greedy breeders.
Fee for Eval, fee for Licenses (breeder & animal),Renewal fees and Penalities.
The Up side to this would not only be pushing adhoc breeding out of the market, It would provide a 'Certification' of Breeders and their breeding stock. it would also help increase income for DVM's and the States (feds).As an ower of 2 Breeding horses, I would Love a 'Blue ribbon' ranking to help validate myself as a breeder of horses and my 'product' as high quality.Cha Ching. Not to mention the reduction of the supply of horses to compete with.
Animal Advocates could build a their Base,thus Change things for the better for man & Beast If only they would stop trying to 'convert' everyone.
come on it's about as productive as Christians trying to convert people to ONLY evangelical...It ain't gonna happen, even if we basically agree with many of your principles.
Your goal is Unattainable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Again, purplegirl....... Posted by: henderson

Comments are closed-

Serious writing deserves serious proof-reading
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BobKincaid on Dec 11, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not trying to be a grammar Nazi here. This is an entirely serious topic, exposing at least one facet of the ongoing con that is corporatized research.

As such, please let your work have a fighting chance. Proof-read not once, not twice, but three or more times before you give your article to AlterNet for publication. "Paper trial?" Within the context of your assertion, that had real semantic disconnect.

Secondly, please be aware of your word choices. "[M]ost dietitians believe . . ." Is being a dietitian now a religious calling, or is it grounded in scientific principles?

The pervasive use of the "believe" word is a part of the pernicious effect of the Religion Industry on our national discussions. I personally don't give a jitterbugging damn what dietitians, beauticians or teevee electricians "believe," because believing is notoriously unreliable. I care what a dietitian, in this context knows.

If you're going to do fact-based reportage, please use reality-based words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Following up Posted by: BobKincaid

Comments are closed-

is killing for food natural?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Zoologist Desmond Morris makes a case for vegetarianism in his 1967 book, The Naked Ape:

"It could be argued that, since our primate ancestors had to make do without a major meat component in their diets we should be able to do the same. We were driven to become flesh eaters only by environmental circumstances, and now that we have the environment under control, with elaborately cultivated crops at our disposal, we might be expected to return to our ancient feeding patterns."

In The Human Story, edited by Marie-Louise Makris (1985), we read:

"...recent studies of their teeth reveal that the Australopithecines did not eat meat as a regular part of their diet, and were mainly peaceful vegetarians, rather like chimps or gorillas. The popular image of the murderous ape is now as extinct as the Australopithecines themselves."

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores "have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth--showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

"Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

"Man instinctively is not carnivorous," explains Dr. Latto. "...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do; people enjoy doing it; they don't feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

"I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening."

Author R.H. Weldon writes in No Animal Food:

"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."

As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions." More recently, William S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded:

"Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the basis for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But, but... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: But, but... Posted by: TheLimit

Comments are closed-

is killing for food natural? (cont'd)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 7:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:

"This is quite an admirable argument. It explains practically everything; why we do not eat each other, except under conditions of unusual stress; why we may kill certain other animals (they are, in the order of nature, food for us); even why we should be kind to pets and try to help miscellaneous wildlife (they are not naturally our food). There are some problems with the idea that an order of nature determines which species are food for us, but an examination of human history indicates the broad outlines of just such an order, though inhibitions against eating certain species may vary from culture to culture.

"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.

"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.

"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usually placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.

"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.

"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."

In his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Peter Singer writes:

"Killing an animal is in itself a troubling act. It has been said that if we had to kill our own meat we would all be vegetarians. There may be exceptions to that general rule, but it is true that most people prefer not to inquire into the killing of the animals they eat.

"Very few people ever visit a slaughterhouse; and films of slaughterhouse operations are rarely shown on television...Yet those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from this or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy.

"If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?"

Peter Singer concludes in Animal Liberation that "by ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation, too."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: is killing for food natural? (cont'd) Posted by: Starfall Deception
» Some like it hot! Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

D.D. Delaney, Norfolk, VA
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thinkingdog on Dec 11, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most doctors, I'll postulate, are meat-eaters with little time for self-reflection or concern for the many health or humane issues connected with raising and consuming meat from factory farms. That's my experience, as a vegetarian who had health issues over the past year and had little choice but to engage with the American medical profession. There, my vegetarianism was considered more as a handicap to be compensated for with higher doses of pharmaceutical drugs than as a factor in explaining why I wasn't more sick than I was or why my recovery from surgery surprised them for its rapidity. I will say that they didn't urge me to change my diet. They just complained a bit that it stood in the way of their plan for my treatment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I always liked "vegetable-tarianism"...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BreeMass on Dec 11, 2008 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...as opposed to strict vegetarianism. This is a term I discovered in a wonderful book clled "Growing Vegetables West of the Cascades". A vegetabletarian bases their diets on plant foods, prefereably grown at home (although certainly not necessary for those of us who don't have a grow at home option) with meats, dairy products, eggs, etc used wisely and sparingly. My grandparents have stuck to this type of diet their entire lives and they are now 85 and 83, ride bikes everyhwere and play tennis four times a week. I think the key is everything in moderation with the bulk of your diet coming from plant sources. We don't all have to be vegans to be healthy, although those who choose veganism are fine by me.

There are a few reasons I don't like to eat much meat. Firstly, I think less meat is needed in our culture strictly for the enivronmental benefits of eating less meat. We don't have to cut it out altogether, but reducing it would be a good start. Secondly, think of all the grain that goes to feed animals raised for food. Many studies over the last thirty years have indicated that if the US and Japan reduced their meat intake by just 10-15%, the resulting savings in grain could easily be diverted and go a long way towards feed the (entirely too many) starving people in the world. Thirdly, the meat industry is disgusting and unhealthy in its treatment of the animals we eat. If we are going to raise them for food, could they at least be treated kindly and humanely?

And just think, by reducing your intake of meat and switching the basis of your diet to much cheaper than meat vegetables, you can easily afford to buy the more expensive, hormone-free, antibiotic-free, free-range hunamely treated meats available in co-ops, farmer's markets, etc.

Just an idea, not trying to preach to anybody, but that's my two cents...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

caronome
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bayardtom on Dec 11, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a knotty issue. Vegetarians, myself among them, know that one feels better when no animal protein is consumed. One of the biggest problems that all meat eating people have is the consumption of too much protein. The kidneys are overtaxed with an animal based diet.

If everyone would read the books by John Robbins, they would swear off meat forever. Try it: Diet for a new America, May all be Fed, Reclaiming our Health and The Food Revolution.

Another compelling reason for swearing off meat and other animal products such as dairy, is the fact that if we stopped using the grains and soybeans for feeding the animals you eat, we could feed everyone on the planet and be free of the hunger that plagues the world. That alone would seem to make a difference for all of us.

I know that this subject is not going to go away, mainly because of the food industries that control the media, but it is certainly worthy of a lot more thoughtful discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

excerpts from Please Don't Eat the Animals
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 10:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

---Albert Einstein

"Each year, the meat industrial complex abuses and butchers nearly 9 billion cows, pigs, sheep, turkeys, chickens, and other innocent, feeling animals just for the enjoyment of consumers. Each year, nearly 1.5 million of these consumers are crippled and killed prematurely by heart failure, cancer, stroke, and other chronic diseases that have been linked conclusively with the consumption of these animals. Each year, millions of other animals are abused and sacrificed in a vain search for a 'magic pill' that would vanquish these largely self-inflicted diseases."

---Alex Hershaft, PhD, president, Farm Animal Reform Movement

When analyzing 8,300 deaths in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany among 76,000 men and women in five different, large studies, researchers concluded that vegetarians have a 24 percent reduction in death from heart disease.

Similarly, in the famous Oxford Vegetarian Study, where 6,000 vegetarians were compared with 5,000 meat-eaters over nearly two decades, scientists found that the rate of death from heart disease was 28 percent lower in vegetarians than in meat-eaters.

One study analyzed eighty scientific studies in leading medical journals. The analysis found that vegetarians had lower blood pressure, and were less likely to suffer from stroke, heart attack, and kidney failure.

A large German study of nearly 2,000 vegetarians found that deaths from heart disease were reduced by over one-third, and that heart disease itself was far less than that of the general population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But, but, Posted by: WhuThe?!?

Comments are closed-

excerpts from Please Don't Eat the Animals (cont'd)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 10:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

Another large study examined the coronary artery disease risk of young adults ages 18 to 30 and vegetarians were found to have much higher levels of cardiovascular fitness and a greatly reduced risk of heart disease.

"The process of gradual blocking of the coronary arteries begins not in adulthood but in childhood...and the main cause of this arteriosclerosis is the steadily increasing amount of fat in the American diet, particularly saturated animal fats such as those found in meat, chicken, milk and cheeses. If there was another disease that caused half a million deaths a year, you can be sure that the public would be acutely aware of the danger, and that the cure or prevention would be universally practiced."

---Dr. Benjamin Spock, author, child expert

"I don't understand why asking people to eat a well-balanced vegetarian diet is considered drastic, while it is medically conservative to cut people open and put them on powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs for the rest of their lives."

---Dr. Dean Ornish, author, Reversing Heart Disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer. Vegetarians have a 20 to 30 percent reduced risk of having a stroke. Stroke, like heart disease, is associated with diets high in saturated fats, and the vegetarian diet is naturally low in these fats.

The Oxford Vegetarian Study found cancer mortality to be 39 percent lower among vegetarians when compared with meat-eaters. The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer found vegetarians suffer 40 percent fewer cancers than the general population.

Studies have shown that decreasing a woman's animal fat intake can reduce the chances that she will die from breast cancer. A large-scale, long-term study in the Netherlands found a powerful connection between the amount of animal fat consumed and the rate of prostate cancer. A review of a dozen studies found dietary fat strongly correlated with prostate cancer.

Ovarian, uterine, and endometrial cancers have all been shown to be strongly correlated to the amount of animal fat in one's diet, and vegetarian women have significantly lower rates of these cancers.

"The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wrs of this century, all the natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined."

---Dr. Neal Barnard, Executive Director, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

"Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rate of coronary disease of any group in the country. They have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40 percent of our cancer rate."

---William Castelli, MD, Director, Framingham Heart Study

"Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

---Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief, American Journal of Cardiology

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Purely Vegetarian Diets Contain No Vitamin B-12
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Dec 11, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Therefor vegetarians must take supplements, either made in a chemical plant or obtained from brewer's yeast (not a common food source in any primitive society). Stone Age humans did not have pharmaceutical plants to produce these, so they would have died rather quickly without meat.

Humans have canine teeth as well as hydrochloric acid and proteolytic enzymes in our digestive tract specifically for digesting meat.

My conclusion from this it that vegetarianism is an unnatural diet for humans, not what we evolved (or were created, if you will) to consume.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Very bad argument Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Very bad argument Posted by: TheLimit

Comments are closed-

If we weren't suoosed to eat cows, they wouldn't be made out of steak!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 11, 2008 3:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Granted, there are some problems I see with how it's grown sometimes--the practice of feeding cow and sheepflesh back to the has led to BSE. Now, who'd have thunk that massive cannibalism of our livestock would have negative consequences?

Oh yeah, we could have looked at a third world population for that inference--kuru, anyone? Hello? "Smart animals don't eat brains!"

Beyond some obvious public heath risks that have been addressed and should be monitored, I see no problem with doing what the Homo genus has been doing forever: enjoying a moderate amount of protein-rich, calorie dense, and oh-so-delicious sizzling cuts of meat

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Vegetarianism and Vitamin B-12
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vasumurti on Dec 11, 2008 3:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are not natural herbivores. The human body can't break down cellulose, the principle component of plant foods (though it does serve a purpose as dietary fiber). This is the reason we can't graze or live on grass. Anatomically, we resemble the other primates (frugivores), whose diet is mostly vegetarian. We're meant to live predominately, if not entirely, upon plant foods. Only vitamin B-12 cannot be obtained from plant foods. Predators are found in nature, but so are cannibalism and rape. Killing other animals for food, in this sense, really is an ethical issue, not a "dietary" issue.

Keith Akers writes in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983): "There is no question that lacto-ovo-vegetarians easily obtain enough vitamin B-12; dairy products and eggs are generous suppliers of vitamin B-12. The controversy pertains only to those who live on plant foods and do not eat any animal foods at all--the 'total vegetarians' or 'vegans.'...The evidence shows, however, that there are numerous sources of vitamin B-12 other than animal foods, and that vitamin B-12 is not a particularly difficult vitamin to get. In short, the Great Vitamin B-12 Controversy, like the protein controversy, is largely generated by lack of information concerning already available research data.

"Only incredibly small quantities of vitamin B-12 are thought to be needed in the diet. According to the National Research Council, 3 micrograms daily will meet the body's requirements. but Victor Herbert, a noted authority on the subject, puts the requirement at 0.1 micrograms, making even the National Research Council's microscopic figure 30 times in excess of the actual need."

John Robbins, author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987), says that vitamin B-12 is found naturally in the environment around us; on the dirt on a carrot pulled out of the ground, in rainwater, etc., but we live in a sanitized society, removed from nature. Keith Akers similarly observes:

"Vitamin B-12 has been found in rainwater and in many plant foods. In small quantities, Vitamin B-12 has been found either in or on various foods such as the roots and stems of tomatoes, cabbage, celery, kale, broccoli, leeks, and the leaves of kohlrabi. An ounce of the roots of leeks, beets, and other vegetables will provide 0.1 to 0.3 micrograms of B-12, which is more than a day's requirement.

"There are other plant foods which provide 'massive' quantities of vitamin B-12--'massive,' that is, in relation to human requirements for the vitamin. These include nutritional yeast, tempeh, seaweed, algae, kelp, and fermented soy sauces. The human liver can store vitamin B-12 for years, so once it is ingested from one of these sources, one can go for long periods of time without having to worry about a source of B-12."

The Garden of Eden was vegan, but veganism as an historical trend is a recent phenomenon.

The Vegan Society was formed in England in 1944.

In his 1979 book, Vegetarianism: A Way of Life, Dudley Giehl writes that some Egyptian priests were vegetarian to help them with their vows of celibacy and that they avoided eggs and milk, which they called "liquid flesh." Giehl also writes that Leonardo da Vinci was a vegan, out of ethical concern for animals.

In his 1923 book, The Natural Diet of Man, Adventist physician Dr. John Harvey Kellogg writes:

"The Ladrone Islands were discovered by the Spaniards around 1620. There were no animals on the islands except birds, which the natives did not eat. The natives had never seen fire, and they lived entirely on plant foods--fruits and roots in their natural state. They were found to be vigorous, active, and of good longevity."

Americans should considerably reduce--if not eliminate entirely--their consumption of animal products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How's about.... Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

Anybody Feel Like Talking About the Actual Article?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: grumble-bum on Dec 11, 2008 6:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like we've all gone off on our usual individual dogmatic rants. & yes, I'm looking at you, vasumurti.

I'll try to spare you all my personal talking points (thoughtful Omnivore, in the natural/sustainable foods business, etc.) for the moment, & get to what bugs me about this article. You know, the one we all read.

The author's argument would appear to be that 1.) some people published in scientific & medical journals are acting at the direct behest of various industries, & 2.) as a result, not only are their results suspect, but anyone who's personal experience or (in this case) dietary choices coincide with said results is also somehow tainted. Finally, she seems to be pushing her own agenda (presumably pure because no one else has been known to be funded to reach the same conclusion?), namely 3.) that red meat is categorically bad.

I won't really touch on #3, simply because it's a highly questionable assertion, that obviously tends to get us all off track. Suffice it to say that there is plenty of legitimate, non-Mass-Ag-funded research that refutes it (presuming moderation & informed consumption). Also, I promised I wouldn't grind my own axe... Which is proving difficult.

Back to this sloppy, "bad apples spoil the bushel" argument: Let's use me as an example. I sell quality, small-scale sustainable meat for a living. I care about providing my customers with food that is simultaneously well-raised & local in origin, which improves both the lives of the animals involved & those of the end consumers (via healthier food, a healthier environment & an enriched community). I haven't read the suspect "medical" articles discussed in the article, but what if I also have reached the conclusion that there are both direct & indirect health & economic benefits to be found in eating meat? I mean, after all, I do make a living by promoting the consumption of meat (although probably in more sensible amounts). I'm directly funded by the sale of the product I endorse. Using the logic laid out in the article, I must be some monster of conflicted interest, no?

If the author had wanted to impress us, she should have given an equal look at the many oft-cited, believed-as-Gospel but increasingly questioned studies regarding the miraculous powers of soya... Funded by the producers of Soy products.

Otherwise, we're left with an article with about the same legitimacy as those that posit that all Leftists are terrorists because a handful of them sometimes break windows, or that all Christians are insane because some of them hate Gay people.

I will agree that "Big Meat is running scared", however. But not because meat can't be proven to have a place in a healthy diet, or because a few pseudo-scientists got busted trying to unnecessarily force that proof. Factory Farmers are freaking out because more & more people are getting their food from people like me & the small producers people like me promote. & eating it in smaller, healthier, more sustainable amounts.

Shit, I guess I trotted out my own colors there, after all. But at least it had something to do with the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's Not That Simple - Yet it Is
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Liberty G on Dec 12, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As stated by one person already, we are all different. That means that:
1. The same diet does not result in health for everyone.
2. Some people are more vulnerable to developing food cravings that lead to obesity and illness.

Having said this, I would tend to go more with the moderate omnivore - but recognizing that there are some very happy, healthy Vegans out there.

Part of the problem is the two major facts that are not recognized:

1. Any meat contains far more pesticide residue than any vegetable produce. The vast majority of meat sold in this country is also laced with hormones and antibiotics. All this stuff ain't good for your health - and some contributes to obesity.

2. A huge factor for many people, healthwise, is the rampant addiction to sugar and refined flour. The latter, by the way, like sugar, causes ones sugar metabolism to go a bit nuts, high, then low. For some of us, both of these result in cravings for more, as well. The connections with hypoglycemia and diabetes are obvious. Candida is a less recognized result of sugar/refined flour consumption.

Another point - despite the sarcasm about conflict of interest concerns, it is true that industry controlled/funded science is suspect.
In the case of bisphenol-A, for example, a researcher found that 100 per cent of industry studies found no harm from the chemical, but 100 per cent of independent ones reported serious problems. This is only the most dramatic story. Over and over, products have been sold for years, then the truth about their toxicity has emerged - often known but not disclosed by the manufacturer.

This does not mean that ALL industry people are dishonest - but that it is generally better to trust those without a financial interest in results.

Finally, it has been a sad fact for many years that government agencies, politically influenced and run, often cooperate with industry to conceal risk and soft-pedal regulation. To see one article on such at www.toxicsinfo.org, the website of my organization, Toxics Information Project, go to: www.toxicsinfo.org/legislation.htm and read States Sue EPA for Files on Household Pollutants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Oh you can have your meat!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blue Heron on Dec 12, 2008 1:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because every time I've ever had the misfortune of being near the stuff, it's always smelled like steaming offal and excrement. McDonalds is certainly a case in point. Flesh eaters are always under this misguided impression that vegetarians are deprived and sickly looking. I think humans are meant to eat something fresh every now and then. And personally, I aim to be more than a vulture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Virtual Food!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Javan on Dec 15, 2008 3:34 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you'd like to stop eating meat just watch on of those videos that show how the animals were raised and slaughtered for profits. If you have any feeling of compassion for other living beings you won't be able to eat them ever again....and you will be much healthier. You can get all the protein you need from beans, nuts and grains!

If you have ever read the book "The Secret Lives of Plants" you will know that a tomato screams electronically when sliced, but we have to eat something! Virtual food maybe, in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Virtual Food! Posted by: Cpt. Lesder Sodmier Diatribe

Comments are closed-

"Life is a Killer!"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Cpt. Lesder Sodmier Diatribe on Dec 16, 2008 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, how much we 'poor players' enjoy ourselves the delusion of, "if I simply listen to what the 'Experts' say I'll shake off the shadow of death!"
...nothing more liberating than learning of the young, healthy, wealthy (and wise) non-smoking, non-drinking, non-drug using, fruit nut and whole-grain eating individual's death!

What were his/her dying words?
1. I'm glad I did the things I wanted to do!
2. According to experts this is unhealthy!

If you chose 1. as your answer you are probably the kind of person who is little concerned with what any so-called "expert" has to say about what you should or should not consume, participate in, and enjoy. You realize that Life = Pain and that it is also meaningless and thus ours to create by choices, choices which, you also understand, are to be enjoyed through the freedom we have to both make them and enjoy them.
If you chose 2. as your answer, well, you're probably too concerned with any Authoritarianism to the extent that you can't think for yourself or create your own life (I digress). But also as to how reading this response is "bad" for you because it makes you deal with Life and not some delusion cooked up by a so-called "expert" whose getting paid to play an "expert" or, worse yet, by an actor or musician who reached their 30s and, suddenly, is also an "expert," yet one who CARES.
No amount of "expert" opinion is going to change the course of LIFE; get over yourselves!
"Come off it!" ~Alan Watts.
Signed: 14-year vegetarian cigar smoker who doesn't judge or condemn anybody for what they think, say, or do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
The Hollywood Double Standard: Tiger gets cooked, Charlie Sheen gets another free pass
 
Is Greece the New AIG?
 
Confused About Nutrition? Eat Food!
 
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer
 
Budget Paranoia
 
Why Does the U.S. Assassinate Americans?
 
Jon Stewart: Why Does Sarah Palin Need a Cheat Sheet?
 
We Must Lift the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan
 
Pushing for “Zero Tolerance” on Sexual Violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo
 
Updated: Obama Calls GOP Bluff on Health-Care Reform
 
MORE 
ALL BLOGS 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
  1. Why Are Americans Passive as Millions Lose Their Homes, Jobs, Families and the American Dream?
  2. 5 Ways Techno-Gadgetry Is Bringing Out the Worst in Humanity
  3. Why Has the FDA Allowed a Drug Marked 'Not Safe for Use in Humans' to Be Fed to Livestock Right Before Slaughter?
  4. Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Are Upending Our Democracy
  5. New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think
  6. White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
  7. Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn
  8. It's Now More Dangerous to Give Birth in California Than It Is in Kuwait or Bosnia
  9. Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
  10. The Newest Diet Trend: What Would Jesus Eat?
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
ABOUT DIGG