Well Kelly, my opinion is that it is possible that pasteurization may kill beneficial enzymes but if I am not raising the cow myself or able to observe the conditions in which the cow is living, I absolutely want my dairy products to be pasteurized. Dairies are nasty places. I consume little dairy as I am not much of a milk drinker but like good cheese, good yogurt and butter, and occasionally ice cream. I would place a higher priortiy on dairy raised on pasture vs corn but that is difficult to come by and often out of my price range.

I also suppose part of my acceptance of pasteurization comes from my study of history. There were far too many terrible illnesses that can be avoided with pasteurization. Again though, in my family dairy is more of a condiment/accent than a nutrient source.

What tishtoshnm said! I've lived where we kept our own milch cow and even then it's very tricky maintaining proper sanitation. I would never buy raw milk unless I observed every single step of the process.

People today don't realize how many horrible diseases were spread by milk before Pasteur.

I've drunk raw milk and it is good, but the cow has to be extremely clean and healthy...a friend of ours was able to sell raw milk and he used to have a rabbi stop by once a week who observed him milking the cow before he would buy the milk...something about being kosher.

Also if you have a problem with hyperactive thyroid the iodine that us used to clean the teets before milking can get into the milk and cause issues....

I understand that raw milk makes great cheese...and ultrapasteurized hasn't got enough bacteria in it to work so you need at most pasteurized to work....but I've not ventured into cheese making yet... it's on my list though.

It's a real shame that this thread has coincided with the delivery of Girl Scout cookies. I ate a box of Carmel Delites yesterday...

Girl Scout cookies sound so good. I have some serious cravings today!

I asked about pasteurization because I'm totally dairy free right now but plan to add it back to my diet in a month or so.

I've been drinking almond milk for awhile now but I love half and half for my coffee and you can't beat melted cheese . . . However, if I'm going to consume it, I want all the benefits from it and drinking "destroyed" milk seems kind of pointless.

Locally, I can get grass-fed raw milk but I have to go to a FM in the city so that would be a weekly trek. Or I can get grass-fed low-temp pasteurized, non-homogenized delivered to me. I'll probably try both just to compare.

I'm not too concerned with getting sick from it. I tend to walk on the wild-side of food-borne illness. Also I read this: "...even if raw milk counts as a health menace, the FDA itself ranks it below hot dogs, ice cream and smoked fish."

Here is a link that might be useful: In Search of a Raw (I)deal

A surprisingly good article from CNN on the processed food industry, including some good shopping advice at the end:

EDIT Oh, and an interesting insight about kosher salt

Here is a link that might be useful: sugar, fat, salt

This post was edited by writersblock on Sun, Mar 3, 13 at 22:45

The TIME article is an interview with the author who wrote the NYTimes piece linked in the OP. He's clearly making the rounds....

Between the two articles and his interview on NPR's Fresh Air, I don't need to read the book. It was all very interesting.

I guess I shouldn't be but I am shocked to see the picture above, showing the week's food for those people. OMG. How can there be adults who don't eat salad or fruit or vegetables other than french fries and potato chips? Even the fast food places sell salad and fruit so it's not as though they don't have access to it.

Annie, I haven't forgotten you - I just have not had the time to do more than take a quick look at that link you provided for me. I will try to get to it tonight or in the next few days.

>Even the fast food places sell salad and fruit so it's not as though they don't have access to it.

A salad from a fast food place isn't necessarily a salad. A McD's salad without croutons or dressing or that fruit plate thing with a dollop of yogurt (without the yogurt) still lists wheat as an ingredient, for example. If you go to the nutrition page of a fast food restaurant and read the actual ingredient lists for their supposedly healthier choices, I frankly think an honest cheeseburger is a healthier choice.

My point was it would be more 'salad' than those people in the picture above eat now. It appears they don't have anything in the vegetable family beyond french fries. Even dull iceburg lettuce provides low calorie, fat free fiber and vitamins.

The only time I eat at a fast food place is maybe once a year on a road trip to HHI, if we run out of food that I pack. Is the salad exactly what I make at home? No, but a simple side salad without the extra junk, a plain baked potato, and even apple slices are available at those places for those who realize they should eat more than french fries.

My guess is the people on the show that Annie mentioned don't read the nutrition facts on the fast food place web site.

>even apple slices are available at those places

My point is that those aren't much like apple slices you slice at home. They were chopped up in a processing plant (often in China, if you care about that), dumped in a huge vat of preservatives and added sucrose to conceal the fact that the fruit wasn't really ripe, and are usually many days or weeks old by the time they get to the restaurant. The vitamin content is pretty much gone by then. It's fruit-shaped, yeah, and I guess there's some fiber in it, but that's about it.

Jeepers Bumble-cut that out! I almost choked on my GSThin Mint cookie when I read your post. Really.
;)

Behold the chip butty:

If there ever was an example where carbs deliver fat, and fat comes with carbs, this is it....mind you there's butter slathered on the white bread before you stuff it with french fries! Ugh! My arteries are clogging just by looking at it!

For those of you interested in learning more about nutrition, I recommend the Nutrition Action Letter put out by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. One of my favorite features is the back page with an article on the right stuff vs "food porn". The fat/calorie/sodium/sugar count of some of the food the industry is offering up to us is just stunning! I mean one serving in the restaurant can be equivalent to more than one day's worth of calories! Yikes!

Here is a link that might be useful: Right stuff vs food porn

I am waiting for Lynke's feedback on the critiques of the china study. :) I have read that and a couple of other books recommended by Dr Fuhrman. Dr Fuhrmans approach still makes sense to me and I started reading his books probably 7 years ago. I do not follow everything he says, but I would like to.

Waiting for Lynkes feedback is kind of what happens at home lately. I buy books on topics, then I don't get a chance to read them, DH does, and then we change what we do. :) I bought a book on fluoride and now we don't use it anymore. I never read the book though. I did read the book Eating Animals. I am sorry I ever read that book.

Oh Annie, that picture made me want to vomit. That looks so unappetizing!

"I am waiting for Lynke's feedback on the critiques of the china study."

Hey you, you talkin' 'bout me? ;)

I still haven't had enough free time, but I will say that I was disappointed to find that (as far as my first quick look showed) the critiques had not been published in peer-reviewed journals. IMO that is a huge weakness right there, no matter how compellingly written the articles might be.

"Lynxe, Below is a link to a page that has lots of links to critiques of campbell and his use of the data. I'm sure you can find more if you look for them."

OK, I just took another look. Annie, those links take me to the very same author you already mentioned, and whose criticisms Campbell has already commented on. It's the same person and, as far as I can tell, the substance of the articles is the same as before. The fact that they appear on a website other than her own do not make them any more valid, or done any differently than before. Unless I've missed something, Minger is still basing her criticisms on raw data, and, as far as I can tell, has done NO high-level statistical analysis. That is just not how research is conducted, and certainly not when you have studies containing hundreds of variables, as the China Study does. If she's not used a computer and statistical software, then I am pretty sure her criticisms are pretty basic.

I will probably go back to that website and reread those articles, but I don't expect to find anything new.

Annie, find me good critiques that have been published in reputable scientifc or medical peer-reviewed journals, and I'll eat my words. Or at least my kale. ;)

As I said before, and I'll say again, we can share links back and forth and that will get us nowhere. I doubt I'll be able to find an analysis that meets with your satisfaction for several reasons. One of which is, whereas Campbell is willing to make leap of faith conclusions, like from casein to all animal protein, that scientists are not willing to make. Calling him on it is not sufficiently weighty to warrant a paper. Additionally, there are well known and proven health risks associated with veganism for which dietary recommendations already made. I’ve posted a link earlier.

You find Minger's analysis, which covers a lot more than just simple correlations, wanting. I find she has raised more than sufficient questions about his work and how he's done it to find his conclusions unsupported. The burden of proof lies with him and his extraordinary claims that veganism can prevent, reverse and cure cancer. When he keeps pointing to studies that have been debunked as further evidence of his point of view, it only shows how blind he is to any facts in light of his faith.

Minger's work consists of a lot more than one article, but instead includes quite a bit of material including this page where she links to other peer-reviewed studies, including those which were authored in part by Campbell in which he comes to different conclusions. I'll link the full page here but will highlight a couple:

Hu and Willett from Harvard in which they point out flaws in Campbell's statistical methodology and approach.

Here's another cute one that illustrates Campbell's willingness to bend the facts for his own purposes. His summary of a study in which he was involved:

Animal protein, including that from dairy products, may leach more calcium from the bones than is ingested....Analyses of these data suggest that increased levels of animal-based proteins, including protein from dairy products, “almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss,” Campbell reported.

And from the actual study itself....
The results strongly indicated that dietary calcium, especially from dairy sources, increased bone mass in middle-aged and elderly women by facilitating optimal peak bone mass earlier in life.

Chris Masterjohn has also critiqued Campbell's work. See here and a follow up here. What I find curious is that Campbell again claims with Masterjohn, apparently, that you can't use simple correlations on the data, and yet that is just what Campbell himself does when he summarizes the China study...quoting Masterjohn:

Campbell summarizes the 8,000 statistically significant correlations found in the China Study in the following statement: "people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease."26 He also claims that, although it is "somewhat difficult" to "show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates," that nevertheless, "animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families."27

You find Minger’s analysis “basic”. The fact that it’s basic doesn’t mean it’s incorrect. I worked as an economist for over 30 years and have done my fair share of modeling. Simple correlations are a good way to approach a large database of raw data. Just saying someone has done lousy work...which seems to be a lot of the critique of Minger that you posted... doesn’t make it so. I'm curious as to what "black box" statistical magic you think needed to be done that Minger and Masterjohn did not do, that Campbell did do, that made the data significant and useful. To quote Campbell, “Unfortunately, this issue of biological plausibility too often escapes the attention of statisticians and epidemiologists, who are more familiar with 'number crunching' than with biological phenomena.” In my book, “number crunching” is statistical analysis and is valid. I find rather curious that, even with whatever "statistical manipulation" he did to tease the conclusions Campbell made out of the data, even with that, the best he could come up with was it was "somewhat difficult". Probably the most honest statement he made.... This business about "biological plausability" is poppycock in my book....as I said, it's an excuse to throw out the data you don't like and keep what you do based on whether it fits your preconceived notions. That is not scientific research in my book.

Rather than look at who is saying what or what organization they are associated with, (McDougall is not unbiased either), I would suggest you look at the logic of their argument and the facts they present and draw your own conclusion on the reliability of the analysis and the conclusions drawn from it. I have and I have concluded that, to my satisfaction, Campbell has not made his case. Far from it.

Again, the most telling thing to me is his willingness to ignore the “biological plausability” of the fact that 30 of the high protein fed animals survived 18 months vs. only 12 of the low protein animals did. In my book, it is intellectually dishonest to ignore that outcome and instead tout the low protein result as the optimum.

But I find myself getting redundant. If you have the time and willingness to investigate further feel free. I, however, do not.

"But I find myself getting redundant. If you have the time and willingness to investigate further feel free. I, however, do not."

Then you can eat your whatever, I'll eat my whatever, and we'll both meet on the green salad thread to share some salad. :)

What about fat free cottage cheese?

lynxe, I don't know why...but I will give it another try.

Michael R. Eades, MD

This was written after Campbell's reply about Minger and he comments on it.

---------------

john-wc, what about fat free cottage cheese? It is a source of high quality protein. Of course, if you're following campbell's recommendations, ALL animal based protein is a problem. For the rest of us, provided we don't have a lactose issue, it's a great source of protein.

And that's my point about Campbell. He not only makes extreme conclusions based on suspect logic, poor methodology and deliberate obfuscations, but he then takes it to an extreme position on diet recommendations which are known to have ill effects unless managed carefully.

AnnieDeighnaugh, thank you for your response.

No, not following Campbell, don't even know who he is. I like meat way too much to become vegan.

Anyway, I eat no fat cottage cheese almost every day for lunch. I was not getting enough protein and that stuff is loaded. I discovered Breakstone's cottage cheese a year ago. Great stuff.

It has taken me a year to learn to love cottage cheese with no pineapple or pears. I also eat an apple at lunch.

Been trying to cut back on red meat but not abandon it. Your thread came at a good time and has inspired me!

OK, Annie, how about the findings from the Adventist Health Studies and in particular the interesting early findings from AHS-2? You commented "an extreme choice... strict veganism, which has had proven ill health effects"

From the study website:

"Adventist Health Study-2: 2002-Present
96,000 U.S. and Canadian Adventists ages 30+
One of the largest and most comprehensive studies of diet and
cancer in the world. Also one of the largest studies of Black/African
Americans, with 26,000 Black participants.
Preliminary Key Results:
• Data show a progressive weight increase from a total vegetarian
diet toward a non-vegetarian diet. For instance, 55-year-old male and
female vegans weigh about 30 pounds less than non-vegetarians of
similar height.
• Levels of cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, and the
metabolic syndrome all had the same trend ��" the closer to being a
vegetarian, the lower the risk in these areas. True for Black as well as
non-Black participants.
• High consumption of cooked green vegetables, brown rice,
legumes and dried fruit was linked to a decreased risk of colon
polyps, a precursor to colon cancer.
• A vegetarian diet was not associated with lower levels of vitamin
D. Other factors, such as amount and intensity of sun exposure, had
a greater infl uence on vitamin D levels in blood than diet."

There is so much on the website that I suggest, assuming you're interested, you visit it and read the parts that interest you. There are also links to the scientific publications, if those interest you.

Here's a cherry-picked bit from the abstract of one of the scientific papers that I like. ;)

FYI: HR stands for hazard ratio, and CI is the confidence interval. If anyone wants a quick statistics lesson, you should definitely choose wikipedia over me - I wouldn't be able to explain nearly as concisely and clearly.

"RESULTS: When analyzing the association of specific vegetarian dietary patterns, vegan diets showed statistically significant protection for overall cancer incidence (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99) in both genders combined and for female-specific cancers (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.92).

CONCLUSION:

Vegetarian diets seem to confer protection against cancer. Impact: Vegan diet seems to confer lower risk for overall and female-specific cancer than other dietary patterns. The lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets seem to confer protection from cancers of the gastrointestinal tract. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(2); 286-94."

FYI the abbreviated journal name in the last line stands for Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

Another cherry-picked conclusion, from a paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Public Health Nutrition:

"CONCLUSIONS:

We conclude from this relatively large study that vegetarians, especially vegans, with otherwise diverse characteristics but stable diets, do have lower systolic and diastolic BP and less hypertension than omnivores. This is only partly due to their lower body mass."

That's not to say that a semi-vegetarian diet isn't healthy, that's not what I'm saying. However, I do think AHS-2 suggests being a vegan is not unhealthy.

I have no problem with a vegetarian diet, though if one is following it, s/he does have to make special efforts to get sufficient protein and calcium. I do have problems with a vegan diet for the long term in that it is deficient in b 12 vitamins that we know of and we know that esp children and infants do not thrive on vegan diets or the milk of vegan mothers. If it's deficient for children, it has implications for adults as well.

Here is an interesting study that concludes that it is hard to parse veganism from vegetarianism, and suggests that it is the inclusion/exclusion of abundance of vegetables in the diet that is more determinative of longevity than is the presence or absence of animal-based proteins and points out the risks of nutritional deficiencies.

Another conflating factor with the adventists is they don't drink or smoke and many avoid caffeine, so how much of their health is due to vegetarianism vs. veganism is difficult to determine. I suspect it's the same problem with vegetarians and vegans who may be more health conscious by choice and pursuing other healthy living choices vs. the general populace.

Here is a link that might be useful: veganism risks

"we know that esp children and infants do not thrive on vegan diets or the milk of vegan mothers."

Can you provide some more information or details?

"Another conflating factor with the adventists is they don't drink or smoke and many avoid caffeine, so how much of their health is due to vegetarianism vs. veganism is difficult to determine."

They're conflating factors when the researcher has not adjusted for them. In fact, you've pointed out one of the reasons why the Adventist Health Studies are so interesting - the homogeneity, relatively speaking, of the study population (relative, for example, to the study population in the EPIC Study). But back to the papers coming from AHS-2 data - or from any well-designed study - factors like caffeine, alcohol, smoking, various demographic differences, etc., are adjusted for. That's why studies do NOT generally base their findings on raw data (like Denise Minger does).

At any rate, the reason why I posted information and links to AHS-2 was because you'd commented on the dangers of a vegan diet to health. Up to this point, AHS-2 has shown no such health dangers.

I can't get too upset about having to take a B12 vitamin. It would bother me, and it would seem like a real problem if taking vitamins were a rare/unusual activity. However, since the industry's own data show sales for 2012 to be over $12 billion in the U.S., I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person taking a vitamin. :)

As for the rest of your comments, they're very interesting. I think it's true that any study of diet has to define or specify the components of the diet (standard, semi-vegetarian, vegan, however you want to put it) clearly and also has to be able to separate the different diets.

In fact, when you have the chance to look at the AHS-2 web site you will find a scientific paper there making the very same point that you made. However, that paper chronologically preceded some of the others I mentioned, which found some health benefits/protections increasing with increased adherence to vegan vs. semi-vegetarian vs. meat-eating, which suggests that some later papers did make the vegan-vegetarian distinction more clearly. (I think I've forgotten some of the categories BTW.)

***the main reasons I posted information and links to AHS-2 were that you had said there were proven ill health effects from a vegan diet, which AHS-2 does NOT support at this point, and because SOME of the findings from AHS-2 SEEM to support SOME of the findings in the Colin Campbell book. (Don't forget, the book is merely a way to get the findings out to the public; the "real" findings were published in scietific papers.)

Here, again, from ASH-2's website on EARLY findings:

"Lifestyle, Diet and Disease

Our data show a progressive weight increase from a total vegetarian diet toward a non-vegetarian diet. For instance, 55-year-old male and female vegans weigh about 30 pounds less than non-vegetarians of similar height. Additionally, levels of cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, and the metabolic syndrome all had the same trend ��" the closer you are to being a vegetarian, the lower the health risk in these areas. In the case of type 2 diabetes, prevalence in vegans and lacto-ovo vegetarians was half that of non-vegetarians, even after controlling for socioeconomic and lifestyle factors.
Although the results do not prove causation, they do suggest that possibility, thus, it is interesting to examine the characteristics of vegans/vegetarians."

My problem is the conflating with vegans and vegetarians. The quote above is comparing vegans and/or vegetarians with meat eaters...and of course we don't know the quality of diet of the meat eaters....if they're anything like that table I posted above, then definitely adding vegetables to the diet will help. I've also known vegetarians (religious reasons) who have had terrible diets....lunch consists of french fries and chocolate.

Children and veganism
vegan diet and children

Death by vegan

vegan pregnancy diet

The last one to me indicates how much nutrition is lacking in a vegan diet unless one works at making sure they eat combos of everything they need in order to stay healthy. IMO, considering the majority of americans can't even walk away from their soda or even eat one vegetable a day, I doubt many would be willing to follow all the regimen required to stay healthy on a vegan diet. My concern is that they will go vegan but not be healthy. If they went vegetarian instead, they could still get a more balanced diet, get the benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables, and maintain adequate protein and vitamins and a balance of fats that come from fish/animal products.

The other concern I have about veganism is something like B12 deficiency (or A or D or protein or zinc) may show up readily and so we know enough to supplement that for vegans....but what other nutrients are missing in a vegan diet that we don't know enough about supplementing that may lead to the kinds of complaints that many have had on a vegan diet, like dietary sulfur?

The other concern I have is for carbs...I struggle to find low carb vegetarian dishes, let alone vegan dishes for the days I'm doing low carb. If you have some suggestions, I'd love to see them...

The Protein Power forums have a couple of posters who are low-carbing vegetarians and have shared their recipes.

Here is a link that might be useful: Protein Power forums

Could someone kindly clarify exactly what a "processed food" is?

For example, which of the following are processed foods?

peanut butter
canned soup
canned chili
bacon
sausage
sweetened/flavored yogurt

I guess some foods are obvious like cereal, potato chips, crackers, hot dogs, etc.

What about Boar's Head meats, ie, turkey, ham, roast beef, etc?

Trying to put together a grocery list.

Thanks graywings, I'll take a look.

Processed foods are things that have been processed giving them an opportunity to add things that you'd rather not eat. The more processed the more opportunities to add stuff.

So, for example, peanut butter....look at the ingredients list...if it's anything more than peanuts and maybe a touch of salt, avoid it. Many brands add sugar plus other stuff.

Not all but many soups can be high in sodium so take a look at sodium levels and look for real ingredients like onions, carrots....the higher up on the ingredient list, the more there is of the stuff so real food higher up is better.

Sandwich meats, bacon and sausages can have nitrites added as preservatives which are considered carcinogens, so try to find nitrite free meat if you can. Also, you want to eat meats that look like real meat...turkey breast that is a sliced breast...not chicken rolls which is some kind of mushed together chicken meat parts with binders and such. Opt for low sodium meats as they can have a lot of added salt in the preservation of the meats.

Cereals can be good or bad depending on what's done to them....oatmeal is fine, but don't get the flavored oatmeals that are loaded with sugar...instead make your own flavorings, like I add maple extract to my oatmeal to make maple flavored, or I stir in walnuts and dried cranberries.

Yogurts can be very high in sugar so you're better off getting plain yogurt and adding your own fruit and a natural sweetener like stevia.

The more cooking you can do for yourself, the better off you are....so, for example, don't buy spaghetti sauce, but instead make your own with canned tomatoes and herbs, garlic, onion and peppers or whatever else you want to add. Spaghetti sauce (like ragu) is extremely high in added sugar.

Best bet as they always say is to shop the outside perimeter of the grocery store where the veggies, fruits, meats, dairy are located and avoid the inner aisles where the cheetos and cheeze wiz are.

You get the idea....

"My problem is the conflating with vegans and vegetarians. The quote above is comparing vegans and/or vegetarians with meat eaters"

Are you referring to the excerpt I posted? This one? . (If not, which quote? I can't comment or react because I'm not sure what quote to look at.)

"Lifestyle, Diet and Disease

Our data show a progressive weight increase from a total vegetarian diet toward a non-vegetarian diet...[...] ."

If that's the wrong quote, point me in the right direction.

"The last one [your link to one of three articles] to me indicates how much nutrition is lacking in a vegan diet unless one works at making sure they eat combos of everything they need in order to stay healthy."

My only response: the American Academy of Pediatrics does not think a vegan diet is harmful. Obviously, the diet must be a good one - as you have observed, one can eat terribly yet still call oneself a vegetarian or a vegan. On one of the web sites I've visited, someone making the very same point commented that someone could eat only Coke and oreos yet technically call themselves vegan!

Which leads to those two links on the supposed dangers to children of a vegan diet. Without knowing specifically what the family actually ate (first link), there's not much to say. To look at the diet scientifically, the family would have had to have kept a food diary. Also, it's possible to find what seems like proof for or against anything if you're willing to look only at anecdotal evidence, and very limited evidence as well. So IMO the story was disturbing, but there's not much to conclude from a sample size of one (one family).

As for that second link, those parents were ignorant idiots. More to the point, apple juice and soy milk do not comprise a healthy vegan diet - or any diet that anyone would give to anyone, much less to an infant. Call it what you like, but apple juice and soy milk are not a vegan diet. Using that as an example would be akin to me finding a story about a child who became ill and/or died because the parents fed it only hotdogs. Would you therefore say, because the child developed scurvy, that's the reason why people shouldn't eat a standard American diet?

Look, do you think we should just agree to disagree? Or continue? I have found this discussion very interesting and fun, and I'm happy to continue it if you are, but I must say I like my proof a lot better than yours. :))) Particularly when it comes to weighing the results from a well-respected, well-run study (Adventist Health Study) and one of its follow up studies (AHS-2 - with 96,000 participants) with many authors publishing in peer-reviewed medical journals to a newspaper article about one insanely stupid couple.

But I can't stop now!

"considering the majority of americans can't even walk away from their soda or even eat one vegetable a day, I doubt many would be willing to follow all the regimen required to stay healthy on a vegan diet. My concern is that they will go vegan but not be healthy."

I agree with you on that one. But the degree to which people are able follow a diet IN A FORM THAT'S CONSIDERED HEALTHY (I'm not shouting - I just have no idea how to italicize) is an issue completely separate from whether the diet itself is safe or healthy. I mean really, considering the state of Americans' health, if that's a criterion for rating a diet, then standard American diet certainly fails on many, if not most, measures.

"If they went vegetarian instead, they could still get a more balanced diet, get the benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables, and maintain adequate protein and vitamins and a balance of fats that come from fish/animal products."

I can agree with that.

What's the deal with sulfur anyway? just eat lots of broccoli. ;)

"The other concern I have is for carbs...I struggle to find low carb vegetarian dishes, let alone vegan dishes for the days I'm doing low carb. If you have some suggestions, I'd love to see them..."

Frankly, when eating what many call a plant-based diet (sounds so much better than vegan IMO), I don't think about low-carb, high-carb, etc. Most of the recipes we use are in Fuhrman's books, and it's partly because I think his message is a good one - but also because the recipes are really, really good. I doubt many would be low carb enough for you, but you might want to take a book out of the library and try some of them. The first book or two was designed to slowly transition people from a true standard American diet to one with more limited animal protein - so there are quite a few recipes with fish, eggs, chicken, etc. You might find some good recipes there.

Also, I just searched to find out what the low-carb people think about beans. In one forum, someone commented that they consider them high-carb but OK because they're also high fiber. So, what about dishes with beans, lentils, or chickpeas? We're currently eating a mushroom chile (that's what it's called), from the Fuhrman web site, that features mushrooms, beans, onions, tomatoes, corn. I forget what else, but it is delicious!

If you like, I'll look for some recipes. Early on, you can give them a thumbs up or thumbs down, and I'll know whether you think they're low-carb enough.

john-wc, also meant to mention that when it comes to food with flour, whole wheat (less processed) is better than white. Same with other grains, whole is better than refined. Look for breads that contain 4g of fiber per slice. Look for higher protein breads like ezekiel bread.

lynxe, I get very frustrated with discussions like this one, where we tend to go round and round and shed more heat than light. So when I get a chance, I'd like to try to sum up our discussion and see if we can't nail down those areas of agreement, which are think are many, and those areas of disagreement, which I think are few. I doubt either of us will change our minds about anything, but at least we can clarify our positions. I think it will help both of us as well as anyone else who may still be following the discussion....

"So when I get a chance, I'd like to try to sum up our discussion and see if we can't nail down those areas of agreement, which are think are many, and those areas of disagreement, which I think are few. "

That sounds great. I'll do the same. Problem is, this is a bad week in terms of free time, and I might be going out of town shortly, for family matters, and I don't know precisely when I'll be returning.

"I get very frustrated with discussions like this one, where we tend to go round and round and shed more heat than light."

I'm really sorry you feel this way. Instead of going round and round, I felt like we were having a good back-and-forth - a discussion or debate, if you will. Also, I certainly didn't feel heated or upset. In fact, I tried to keep things focused on papers and research, and also to joke a bit here and there. I apologize if you felt angry or that we were having a frustrating and heated round & round discussion.

"I doubt either of us will change our minds about anything, but at least we can clarify our positions"

Clarfiying is always good, especially - as you have pointed out - for people reading but not participating.

I do want to say though that I have and will change my position when presented with what seems like good, sound research and facts. In fact, that's why I made the transition to a mostly plant-based diet. Here, I might not change my position, but if it's merited, I certainly would modify it.

Back to a monster to-do list and trying to get caught up before my likely trip.

I have been mostly on the sidelines of this conversation, which I find very interesting. I believe the best dietary approach depends on the individual body. It took me a very long time to understand my body's needs, and I could have come to that point sooner if I had known to listen to my body. But for decades we have heard health and fitness preachers tell us what's right for our bodies as if it were gospel.

I remember being in a large group listening to one such preacher (who if I believe wrote a nutrition column for the Washington Post). She kept repeating that everyone needed to drink milk. And have fruit for breakfast. That, I am sure, worked for her. It certainly would not work for me.

Getting back to the original topic, it frightens me that agribusiness gives us so many food products that taste good but lack nutrition. Processed foods could be healthy - it's a choice of whether to or not.

Thanks graywings, that was a point I wanted to make too...as one doc said, fat is bad for your heart, protein is bad for your kidneys and carbs are bad for your blood sugar, and even water can hurt you if you drink too much, but you've got to eat something. I think people need to listen to their bodies and have an understanding of their family history as well...be it cancer, diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, etc. Individualized medicine and nutrition is the best of all.

OK, Lynxe, I’ve got some time now to delve back into our discussion.

First of all, I wasn’t angry and sorry if my use of the expression “more heat than light” led you to think otherwise.

Let me summarize what I think are the fundamental agreements we have:

. eating more fruit and especially vegetables is better than eating less

. a vegetarian diet has health effects that exceed those of the std american diet

. a strictly vegan diet is nutritionally deficient and must be supplemented to maintain health as it lacks B-12. Other essential nutrients such as iron and zinc are less bioavailable in non-animal sources and may also need supplementation

. many studies conflate the various degrees of vegetarianism making it harder to parse the health effects between the types of vegetarian diets

I think we can agree that:

. the AHS studies and analysis are better done than Campbell’s work and the china study (the study itself)

. vegans can have a lousy diet just as meat eaters can

. what’s most important is how an individual performs on the diet... some may do better on one kind of diet than another given their individual biome, genetic history, access to various foods, and willingness to adhere to the requirements of a particular diet

Where we disagree:

. I think Campbell's work has been credibly debunked and engages in junk science...you think his work is valid, and makes important points

. I think that the health benefits and maintainability of a vegetarian diet are superior to that of a vegan diet

. I find evidence lacking that veganism improves longevity over meat-based diets

. Veganism risks other nutritional deficiencies of which we may not be aware which can be easily alleviated by inclusions of some animal or fish products in the diet

. I don’t like the term “plant-based” diet as that could mean anything...IMO you can eat a plant-based diet and still include some beef or pork, or eggs and cheese. For me the hard line is between veganism and vegetarianism which “plant-based” doesn’t distinguish

Below, I linked a study abstract from the NIH summarizes my thinking on the issue nicely. It's concluding sentence:

Vegetarianism is a form of food restriction; and in our overfed society, food restriction is a plus unless it results in a nutritional deficiency.

I think it’s interesting to note that the AHS analysis attributes much of the health benefits of vegan/vegetarian diets with lower BMI. However they also find:

“Some evidence indicates a temporal relationship between initiating plant-based diets and leanness (2,3), though a randomized study found that a vegetarian diet did not improve long-term weight loss (25). As with most dietary trials, the participants' compliance to the diet declined substantially over time.”

Doesn’t matter how wonderful a diet is for you if you can’t stick with it.

Here is a link that might be useful: Vegetarian diets, chronic diseases and longevity

What do you think of the Fuhrman diet, Annie, if you are familiar with him?

Here is a link that might be useful: Fuhrman Food Pyramid

I haven't studied it, but Furhman's diet is appears relatively healthy. His emphasis on vegetables and fruits is good and I like his emphasis on nuts and seeds for which there is a lot of evidence that they provide protective health effects. I would not consider meats "low nutrient" value though, as there are vitamins and minerals that are far more bioavailable in animal products than in plants. The fact that he includes them at all though is good.

If you're eating that diet, I certainly wouldn't go with non-fat dairy products though as saturated fats are an important part of the diet and I'd prefer a diet that balances the fats better. Further, non-fat dairy is more processed and often high in sugar to replace the fat which is not the best.

The other concern I have, esp for people like me...aging baby boomer...is as we age, our need for calories goes down, but our need for protein does not. So it's very important that the diet include adequate complete protein consumption which is harder to do on a diet so high in vegetables...not impossible, but harder.

I'm not sure how easy that diet is to follow if 60% of your calories a day are to come from nonstarchy vegetables (or at least that's what it looks like...not clear to me where he puts yams and winter squashes, corn, peas and other starchy vegetables)...with 7 calories in a cup of raw swiss chard, how many cups must you eat to meet 1200 calories for the average person? Even cooked, you're looking at 34 cups to meet that calorie requirement! Anyone trying that will be spending a LOT of their day eating!

Finally on these diets, you'd better buy cases of gas-x or beano if you want to keep your friends.
;)

With these diets, I suspect the major benefit of them is that even if people can't adhere to it strictly, it pulls them in a healthier direction.

The non-fat is interesting as a bad choice. I often choose low fat products but rarely non-fat (because they don't taste good!)

I don't believe in eliminating meat altogether. I hope that is a good choice. Since we have evolved eating meat, it would seem reasonable that we need it. I agree that, just as we are learning about nutrients in non-animal products not known before, there is likely more nutritional value in animal products than we know of, too.

"Finally on these diets, you'd better buy cases of gas-x or beano if you want to keep your friends.
;)"

I always wonder about that! lol How does he manage with all these stinky and gas producing foods, lol.

I think healthier direction is a good perspective on what can be gained. It does seem like a difficult diet to maintain and very expensive. I always feel better when I eat some protein. I think he says that is toxic addiction to bad foods.

I always ave to laugh that it always comes down to diet and exercise. And eating your fruits and vegetables!

Was interested in hearing what you think of his diet because I seem to be on the same page with your thoughts on nutrition. I also think he has got it right with focusing on food as medicine. I do believe it can be a powerful resource and the American diet is just awful.

Just a note --- many many low fat products replace the fat with sugar to maintain palatability, and vice versa. Just make sure when you read the label that you are getting something better.

The best "low fat" foods are the one that were always low fat, and people just decided to throw the label on it.

Right, mtnrd...like when they started labeling canned peaches as "cholesterol free!"

Duh!

Annie, I read your last post re:Furman's diet. I eat NO meat(it's been 12 years), but do ocassionally eat chicken, but mostly veggies/fish. I have to tell you, I never 'have the need' for those products.

I made 'cabbage soup' really vegetable soup w/o meat, last week, and ate it twice a day for 5 days and had no 'side effects' . It had cauliflower, broccoli, kidney beans, a full hear of cabbage, as well as other fresh veggies. I do this twice a year. as a sort of 'cleansing ritual'.

Meat is the culprit of some of the obnoxious(or should I say noxious)things it does to our bodies. ;o)

Sorry, I used the word meat when I should have said animal products (meat, poultry, egg, cheese, milk, fish). If you are getting some of these then you are getting B12. Some older people can get into severe deficiencies as their bodies lose the ability to absorb B12 from their food. Very often it shows up as dementia. Here are the signs of deficiency from WebMD:

A deficiency of vitamin B12 can lead to vitamin B12 deficiency anemia. A mild deficiency may cause only mild, if any, symptoms. But as the anemia worsens it may causes symptoms such as:

weakness, tiredness or light-headedness
rapid heartbeat and breathing
pale skin
sore tongue
easy bruising or bleeding, including bleeding gums
stomach upset and weight loss
diarrhea or constipation
If the deficiency is not corrected, it can damage the nerve cells. If this happens, vitamin B12 deficiency effects may include:

tingling or numbness in fingers and toes
difficulty walking
mood changes or depression
memory loss, disorientation, and dementia
B12 deficiency in infants, if not detected and treated, can lead to severe and permanent damage to the nervous system. New mothers who follow a vegetarian diet should have their babies' B12 levels checked by a doctor.

I do intend to follow up on our areas of agreement - and you and I do agree quite a lot. But things have gotten away from there again! You're still linking a vegan diet with vitamin B12 deficiency in a way (as I read it) that suggests the deficiency is a valid reason to avoid vegan diets.

It isn't. First, you can eat fortified foods.

Second, the vitamin B12 found in animal products is bound to the proteins. The body separates the vitamin from the protein during digestion. (It's done in the stomach via the stomach's hydrochloric acid and another substance, gastric protease.The latter is an enzyme.)

Now, here's the thing - as you have noted, coming at it from a different angle, a decent proportion of elderly people have decreased secretion of hydrochloric acid. The result? Vitamin B12 deficiency. Doesn't matter what they eat for dinner - steak or tofu, the result is still deficiency.

This is what you said:

"Some older people can get into severe deficiencies as their bodies lose the ability to absorb B12 from their food."

That is true. We agree on that one. However, because the percentage of elderly people with decreased hydrochloric acid is estimated to be fairly high, the IOM (Institute of Medicine) recommends ALL adults over age 50 get their vitamin B12 from fortified foods or from vitamins. What they are saying is that animal protein should NOT be relied on to do the trick.

Vitamin B12 is stored in the body for only a few days, so it doesn't matter whether you ate steak every night up to age 50 either.

What is the point of all of that? Well, if I have to take a supplement because I eat mostly a plant/vegan diet, so do quite a lot of other Americans, even with the supposedly protective animal proteins in their diet.

Back to fortified foods: the NIH (National Institutes of Health) agrees that eating a single serving of fortified cereal for breakfast should supply you with 100% of your vitamin B12 DV (daily value). Sounds doable to me. :)

Lynxe, this is getting really redundant.

It's not a question of whether one can compensate for the deficiency. I suppose if one wanted to, they could live on nothing but supplements. Those on that very low calorie diet trying to hyper extend longevity essentially do that. But that is not to say it's optimal for good health or sustainable by the vast majority of people.

As I said before, the issue is that the strict vegan diet, by itself is not complete. Meaning that it is not fundamentally consistent with the full nutritional requirements of the human body as it has evolved over the past tens of thousands of years. This, on its face says that it is not optimum.

Further, as I said before, we know about the need for B-12, and the challenges of adequate protein, iron, zinc, iodine, DHA, calcium in following that diet. But it's what we don't know that's missing in that diet that could be harmful. We went for decades lauding a low to no fat diet and it wasn't until they looked deeper into the kinds of fats and the metabolism of those fats and things like essential fatty acids that they realized the low/no fat diet was not optimum. Not only for the required fats, but also for the sustainability of the diet as fats help keep one from feeling hungry. Further the replacement of fats with sugars, as many food cos. did to try to keep their food palatable, was very damaging to the waistline and blood sugar levels.

Moreover, on a personal level, I never went vegetarian but approached that and found myself not doing well as I wasn't getting adequate protein (suffered hair loss and weak nails) and I was getting excess carbs which showed up as belly fat and cellulite. When I went back to eating a more balanced diet, all of that improved as well as my muscle tone and energy levels.

I know quite a few other people who tried vegetarianism and went back. I know others who have tried veganism and went back to vegetarianism because they felt better and were doing better.

You can argue that it was because they weren't doing it right, but the reality is, given how much time and effort they were willing to put into it, including some animal products in their diet was more effective and sustainable for them.

If veganism works well for you, then that's wonderful. If you're willing to invest the time and effort to get sufficient variety/supplementation to keep your diet complete, that's great. I'm happy with whatever works for anyone that keeps them healthier.

But given that only 2% of Americans are even self-described as vegan (and we don't know how many of those are long-term vs. dabblers) and given the nutritional risks/effort required to maintain health on that restrictive a diet, as well as the anecdotal experience of those who have tried it especially for the long term, I believe it is not the best diet for the vast majority of people.
--------------------

This video discusses multigenerational veganism, or the lack thereof.

The link below is a blog post by a doctor on her actual experience with patients who pursue veganism (vs. the theoretical) and how rare it is to find someone who will maintain the diligence required for long term health with veganism.

If you do a search on "long-term veganism" you'll find lots more.

Here is a link that might be useful: Dr. Clouthier on Veganism

What worries me is the GMO’s; it’s in so much of what we eat. Other counties have either banned it or have lawsuits or both. I was so surprised that President Obama signed the HR933 on Tuesday with the section 735 Monsanto Protection Act included. They are now protected on both their GMO’s and GE. This could have devastating affects on small farms / sterile bee’s lack of pollination to say nothing of what other countries are saying about the health risks.

If you are interested in understanding what it is you are eating, below I'm posting a good web site to have...it posts the nutritional facts including how complete the food is, how many of the amino acids the protein in the food contains, if any inflammation factors have been associated with it, in addition to the regular fat/protein/carb/calorie data.

Below is the list for a cup of cooked quinoa, but you can enter your own food item....

Here is a link that might be useful: Nutrition facts and analysis

Regarding avoiding low fat products due to the added sugar, mentioned above, I came across an interesting article on dairy products. There are lots of natural hormones in milk, often very high when coming from pregnant cows! So buying hormone free milk isn't exactly true. These natural hormones are linked to various cancers. They are stored in the fat, so skim might be a better choice in the end, if you eat dairy.

Here is a link that might be useful: Hormones in Milk - Harvard Gazette

This post was edited by snookums2 on Wed, Jul 17, 13 at 0:08