Vegetarian verses other diets

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, Heather McDougall, John McDougall, carolve

Vegetarian verses other diets

Postby Ted W Bishop » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:44 pm

I find myself questioning my previous concept of a “good diet” that I have learned at SDSU and from other sources like Dr. Nicholas Perricone. The teaching about Dr. McDougal and a no fat, vegetarian diet to greatly reduce risk of disease and to control it is thought provoking. The largest question I have is it necessary to be vegetarian to accomplish this? Could the similar or the same result be achieved by Dr. Nicholas Perricone approach with limited amount organic meat form wild Salomon and range free Chicken breast and there eggs using the white of the egg primarily.
Last edited by Ted W Bishop on Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ted W Bishop
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:33 pm

Postby serenity » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:01 pm

There are a number of doctors who advocate a low fat, plant based diet. Some are OK with small amounts of animal products - Dean Ornish and Joel Fuhrman come to mind. And actually, Dr. McDougall never describes his recommendations as "vegetarian." He is OK if you want to have a small amount of turkey or some such thing on Thanksgiving or on your birthday. But it really should be limited to special occasion "feasts."

The overall thought by these doctors is that the more plant based, whole foods, the better. And people who are coming to this in middle age after a lifetime of indulgence have pretty much used up their "get out of jail free" cards. To reverse disease that is already present, a strict approach is required.

And T. Colin Campbell's research seems to be pointing to animal protein as a cancer promoter at any level of intake. So it's not just the fat that is the trouble maker.

Ultimately, we all decide how limited is "limited." But I will never forget at a conference, a question was put to a panel of doctors about "how much" something or other, and the answer was, "How many times do you want to pull the trigger?"
User avatar
serenity
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: So. Calif

Wow, thanks for the reply

Postby Ted W Bishop » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:16 pm

What I am wrestling with is it that protein is bad or is it that most of the protein is from unhealthy animals treated with antibiotics, verse healthy happy animals not raised in on antibiotics.

Plus the use of Omega 3,6,9 from a blend of Flax seed, Borage and Fish Oil for multiple purposes, example: remove bad cholesterol, counter act inflammatory response is lost on a strict no oil approach

I am just starting to learn on this subject, thank you again for you reponse
Ted W Bishop
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:33 pm

Reply

Postby Charlie » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:05 am

First, welcome to the forum, Ted.

Serenity mentions Dr. Joel Furhman, Author of "Eat To Live" who gives you a little leave way for animal products if you think you must have it. However, he recommends going 100% without the animal products.

I personally find it difficult to allow myself to to keep the healthy lifestyle unless I commit 100% to it. When I allow myself to eat food that are not McDougall legal...I start eating unhealthy, more and more. e.g. I was using one of my 4 holidays on Thanksgiving and continued off and on through Christmas.

I recently got finished reading "Eat To Live" and decided to go on Furhman's 6 week diet plan. This is not a starch based diet as Dr. McDougall's... but...I don't believe Dr. McDougall would have a problem with it. I still consider myself a McDougaller...his DVD's have meant so much to me and my wife. I had gained 7 plus pounds between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I have been following Dr. McDougall's guide since June of 2006. I must admit I did start getting careless...eating candy too often...no meat or dairy products except on my 4 holidays, had some meat. To much peanut butter, candy etc. Dr. McDougall uses an example of the man that went to his Dr and was told that he should stop smoking. Like any good Dr....he didn't say to just cut back to a half pack a day but to totally stop. That is exactly what I must do if I want to stay on a healthy vegan lifestyle. I don't know if you have had a chance to see Dr. McDougall's DVD's but they are really good.

You may also be interested in watching some lectures by many experts that believe in the healthy vegetarian and vegan lifestyles. If so, check out the Vegetarian Society of Hawaii's web site:
www.vsh.org

Best Wishes,

Charlie
Charlie
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:59 am
Location: Cocoa, fl

Postby dagnabit » Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:54 am

Ted,

I am 90% McDougaller. I am an avid fisherman and occasionally eat a fish that I catch from our clean high mountain lakes and creeks. But I am increasingly finding it difficult to do so. Now as I chew on a fish I get a bit of a gag reflex that I never had before.

People embrace a plant-based diet for a number of reasons. For me it was health. I initially read T. Colin Campbell's The China Study and decided to make some changes. Initially, I did not care for the plight of animals and viewed vegans as wackos. However, over time meat became increasingly disgusting to me. I'm no longer tempted in the least by most meats. Probably the only thing I kind of miss is cheese.

My wife raises some chickens as pets (the kids eat some of the eggs), so chicken does not appeal to me any more either. They are such sweet animals. They will follow you around the yard and let you pet them. When you open the door to go outside they will come running from afar to greet you. It is amazing how callous we can get to the plight of animals when we only view them as food. It was John Robbins, The Food Revolution, that made me start thinking about the ethics of meat eating. I highly recommend that book.

I would agree with you that pasture-raised animals and fish would be somewhat better for you than those raised on factory farms. They tend to have a better Omega 3 to Omega 6 ratio than factory-farm raised animals. Wild animals like deer or elk would probably be even better as far as Omega 3s go. But pasture-raised animals are quite hard to find, and there is a lot of deception about the origin of such animals (see the recent lecture by Jim Mason http://vsh.voip-info.org/Mason.html); most "free range" poultry is not, since it is not economical. If you justify a little "organic" meat, you open the door to eating the regular stuff. And it really is not good for you anyway. Then there is the question of the slaughterhouses where even "happy cows" and chickens have to go to be killed and are there exposed to filthy conditions where they can pick up salmonella, ecoli, campylobacter, listeria, and mad cow disease.

Not only is meat is mostly devoid of nutrients, but it is not good for you. A recent meta analysis by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research of over 7000 studies on nutrition and cancer that took years to develop, found a definite link between meat consumption and higher rates of cancer. Granted, some types of meats are worse than others. But that is just cancer. There are all kinds of other chronic diseases and ailments that are likely linked to meat and cows milk consumption. When you eat meat, you eat the diseases, pathogens, concentrated pesticides, bacteria, blood disorders, parasites, etc. that the animal had before it died. Most of the bad stuff is killed by cooking, but some of it gets through. Overcooking meat gives us cancer. And undercooking can make us sick or expose us to stuff that can shorten our lives. Many animal diseases can jump to humans quite easily. Plant diseases, on the other hand, cannot.

Anything you can get from meat, you can get from a plant-based diet anyway (except B12). So why do we eat it? Because it tastes good, has lots of calories, and we've been conditioned to think that we need lots "high quality" protein (see http://vsh.voip-info.org/lisle.html for more psychological reasons). As far as protein goes, if a giraffe can grow as big as it does on a plant-based diet, then I think a measly human can make do just fine eating plants. We tend to consume far too much protein anyway.

Dietary guidelines suggest we eat at least 9 servings of fruits and vegetables per day for optimum health. That is hard enough to do without filling one's diet with a bunch of empty calories. If you need your fish or poultry fix and otherwise eat a plant-based diet, all power to you. If you go completely, plant-based -- even better. It is a personal decision for everyone. But anything you do to increase the fruits and vegetables you eat is good and your body will ultimately thank you for it. Good luck in your quest for ultimate health.

Dan



World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research,
“Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective”
http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/downloads/Second_Expert_Report.pdf
User avatar
dagnabit
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:19 pm
Location: Utah

Postby sanlee » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:29 am

Hi Ted,

Like most of us here, I'm firmly convinced that eating meat is unhealthy, but I came to it in stages -- from supermarket meats (I cringe now to think of that) to organic, wild meats. The latter was a huge improvement (no antibiotic or artificial hormones), but like Dan said, you still don't know what diseases, parasites, etc. even a wild animal may have.

All that said, if YOU feel you need some kind of meat, then the plan you outlined is highly preferable to SAD. Perhaps after awhile on that, you'll begin to see the health benefits of going meat-free -- if not, you'll still better off than the average SAD eater :-)

Good luck, sanlee
sanlee
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:05 am
Location: Connecticut

Thank you for the responses

Postby Ted W Bishop » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:06 am

Again I thank everyone for the responses, at this stage of learning it appears I have allot more information to look at. For me personally I have changed my diet in past based on 3 factors: increased knowledge, better influences, and concern for being healthy with out the need for medications to fix conditions that diet changes.

Knowledge about bad and unhealthy oils, the effect of processed sugar, the over use of pesticides, antibiotics, and steroids has caused a huge change in diet for me years ago. That included not going to fast food restaurants. What I have been aware sense then is that animals raised in ugly conditions can not be healthy food. Though true free range and wild animals harvested in moderation has seemed to be a sensible choice in recent years.

What would help me at this point is to find studies that compare the health effects of vegetarian type of diet with moderate amounts of free range type of meat verses a complete vegetarian diet. A decision based on knowledge that I can stand behind and live by and explain to others.

Thanks again for the information and I will be busy studying this in the days to come.
Ted W Bishop
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:33 pm

Postby DianeR » Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:12 am

I suggest you look through the medical information on the general McDougall web site and skim through the newsletter archives. There is a wealth of information there, and probably the answers to any questions you have. It is tough in one post to sum up what has taken Dr. McDougall a number of books and years of newsletters to describe.

In short, neither the animal protein nor the animal fat is good for you. Some of the stuff is better for you than the rest, but none is really beneficial. There is nothing in animal products you can't get in a healthier way from plants. (Commercially-bred animals these days, I heard, have to get their B12 from supplements too! I wish I could find that link again ...) The "healthy fats" are more a way to counteract the bad effects of eating the "bad fats" than they are something that adds to the health of those consuming no bad fats to begin with. (And if you want the "healthy" fats, you don't have to get them indirectly by consuming fish. You can have flax or hemp products, walnuts, leafy greens, etc.)

I read about nutrition for maybe 15 years before I switched to McDougall. So many folks would say to limit meat, etc., but they never explained why you need it at all. My husband and I were doing the "limit" approach with mostly chicken/turkey or fish, small servings, and plenty of vegetarian meals. But it was only with McDougall that our health improved. (Between the two of us: gained energy, lost weight, lowered cholesterol, eliminated gall bladder attacks, ended frequent sinus infections, stopped daily acid reflex problems. I'm sure there have been other health benefits that we can't confirm, like healthier arteries, stronger bones, and the like. Everyone says we look much younger than we are too!)

I try to base my decisions on evidence. I have tried to be vigilant is exploring any study that might indicate that there is some benefit in consuming something I'm not or cutting out something I am. One thing I like about Dr. McDougall is that, through the years, I have seen him change his mind when new evidence comes in. For instance, he saw some study of isolated soy protein and decided it had to come out.

Anyway, in all these years (15 pre-McDougall, nearly 8 McDougall) I've only seen one study that looked at the impact of an animal food that, when added to a diet, found a benefit. This was among malnourished children in Africa. One group was given beef; one was given nothing. It found that beef was better than starving. Yes, this unethical study was financed by the American beef industry and I've seen it alluded to (without pertinent details, of course) in nutrition articles in the mainstream press.

Ask yourself if any of the evidence you've seen in favor of this or that diet that includes an animal product ever compares that diet to a lowfat vegan one. I haven't seen it. (BTW you have to carefully look at what the press may call "low fat." Those studies that supposedly show low fat doesn't work weren't really low fat.)

In addition to the McDougall materials, you may be interested in Saunders, The Vegan Diet as Chronic Disease Prevention.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Postby Adrienne » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:17 am

Hi Ted
I too am very interested in nutrition (I am studying it in school) and I have spent countless hours reading books and online journals.

I highly recommend you read The China Study and a book called Healthy at 100 by John Robbins.

The healthiest groups of people on the planet do eat some animal products. However it constitutes only 1% of their diet. And they eat not any refined carbs and they consume plently of fresh vegetables.

Its really hard to compare vegans vs those who eat small amount of animal products since many vegetarians/vegans eat junk food diets.

In the china study the author says its hard to tell exactly at what level animal protein becomes problematic but definitely the less animal protein the better.
Adrienne
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:26 pm

Postby Zena » Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:01 pm

Hi Ted,

Everyone has posted excellent info in regards to your question. I wanted to just add one other point that I don't think was covered. That has to do with protein in general. Protein is very acidic (hence the term amino "acids") and since our pH balance is slightly alkaline, our bodies need to get rid of any extra protein we subject our systems to. The main way is to leach calcium from our bones to neutralize the acid. This leads to problems such as osteoporsis and kidney stones. A healthy plant-based diet can provide all the protein we need while meats, eggs and cheese provide too high of a protein load. This, combined with the risk of cancer and other diseases, has led me to believe the less animal foods consumed the better...and no animal foods consumed the best. Good luck! :)
User avatar
Zena
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:35 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Postby groundhogg » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:23 am

I guess somebody should throw in Nathan Pritikin, into the discussion, since he really was among the first pioneers in the low-fat arena, but was not vegan and not even vegetarian, which goes directly counter to Campbell's suggestions that low-fat animal proteins are even worse than regular, due to the higher concentration of protein minus the fat, etc.

The argument goes on and gets very complicated...ugh....I've read lots of "theories," and their bits and pieces of studies they were built on...and it's all lots of confusion.

I would really love to see a good, honest debate on nutritional issues...since we're heavy into the political season now and debates are happening all the time :D -- I would love to see ALL of these proponents of this dietary thing or the other, up on a stage...STRIPPED of their Powerpoint presentations....relying ONLY on discussion and allowed to point to prominent, important studies to support their arguments back and forth...the references to the original sources published in a bibliography with abstracts given to all who would take part in the debate ahead of time, so they can catch up with all the ideas being discussed...

...I'd like to see, besides John McDougall, Fuhrman, Klaper, Doug Graham, Campbell...plus Barry Sears, Gary Taubes, Loren Cordain, and Chris Masterjohn. As to who would fall in between to moderate, and not be bought out by food industry...well...heck the only name that comes to mind is Andrew Weil!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Or else maybe that Mercola guy...I mean...just somebody who has advocated BOTH vegetarian/vegan or the option of meat-eating...I mean somebody's who's been on both sides enough to be able to be fair to both sides of this argument.

Now the thing that bothers me most, after having been low-fat vegan for just over a decade...is the grain issue. After tons of gluten-eating blew my guts out, and I'm wondering if I ever will be the same again, although I am at least 1,000 better now almost two years gluten free...but after the unexpected blow-out from gluten, and increased sensitivity to other unexpected foods, I can't help but wonder about the safety of eating too many grains in the diet. I'm sure Doug Graham agrees with this idea and therefore keeps grains out of his raw vegan diet...I get the feeling Fuhrman leans that way a little bit, at least with a little caution....etc.

I came across a quote the other day while cleaning a kitchen shelf with years of nutrition/diet/recipe books, by Jeff Novick, McDougall's new nutritionist at his clinic...in which Novick is quoted, in '98, as saying he believes grains are dangerous and he was only able to get over his own allergies by removing grains entirely from his diet...that he also noticed this with others he worked with (he was then working at the Pritikin Longevity place in Florida)....now wondering if he still feels that way about the dangers of eating too high proportion of grains in the diet. Anybody know anything about his current feelings on the issue???? Or...IF he still does not include grains???? Or what grains he was talkin' bout?

I've been close to experimenting with grain free over recent weeks...I say CLOSE because my life is so hectic, unpredictable, and irrgeular I haven't been able to entirely avoid all grains...my parents sick and having trouble and I'm always having to run up there plus keep up with regular, hectic-enough stuff, etc. So...outside of small amounts of rice every few days...I'm almost there...once I get grain free...I'll try to go about a month, if it seems reasonable to continue, and see what happens there.

But...I'm a little off topic I guess now...just saying, though...that I think an honest debate, not defending one's previous theories, but honest discussion about what studies do suggest and what actually has been observed in people's diets would be a very helpful thing. I guess if I ever win the lottery, I'll gladly sponsor this debate :P !!!
groundhogg
 

On Jeff Novick's blog,he recommends whole grains,meaning

Postby veggiecat » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:14 am

intact grain, as opposed to flour products.
Best wishes,Cat
User avatar
veggiecat
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:27 pm
Location: wpb,fl

Postby Adrienne » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:24 am

Someone who has been on been both for vegetarian/vegan and a little meat eating once in while is Dr. Fuhrman. In his book Eat to Live there are recipes for chicken for those who want to eat it. Also I dont think Novick is vegan neither is Ornish. In fact my mother told me she saw ornish on Good Morning America the other day and he made stir fry with shrimp! I couldnt believe it since I figured he would take the opportunity to intruduce more veggie recipes to the American people who already eat too much animal foods.

Nutrition is an extremely contencious issue sicne literally everyone has their own opinions. Even amongst raw foodists there are differences in terms of how much fat should be allowed and food combining etc. And everyone has opinions as to how important nutrition is alone without other factors like stress management.

In terms of which experts to listen to I personally trust McDougall, Furhman, Esselstyn Barnard above others. I subscribe to Dr. Weils daily newsletters and I have a great amount of respect for him but in terms of fish I agree wtih Dr McD that japanese are healthy despite fish not because of it (whereas weil gave up vegetarianism because he thought fish was healthy). I would be wary of Mercola though.

In terms of teh China Study being the final word on the dangers of animal protein, I brought the subject up wtih my chinese medicine doctor who is vegan and eats a mcdougall-type diet. He told me that for those knowledgable in chinese medicine the book was nothing new. In southern china where it really hot, minimal animal protein is the healthiest way to eat. However in colder climates some people may benefit from a little animal prtoein in their diet since it is much more energy dense. This was his opinion from a chinese medicine perspective

Finally in terms of grains, they are mucous forming which seems to be a problem for some people. I actually met someone recently who has been fruitarian for 20 years and cured his crohns disease and swears by hte 80 10 10 diet. I ordered his book recently and will read it and form my own opinion as to whether or not fruit is actually the ideal food. I will never be fruitarian but I figured since I am studying nutrition in school and plan on consulting with patients in the future I should learn as much as possible about every diet out there.
Adrienne
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:26 pm

Postby DianeR » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:45 am

Zena wrote:Hi Ted,

Everyone has posted excellent info in regards to your question. I wanted to just add one other point that I don't think was covered. That has to do with protein in general. Protein is very acidic (hence the term amino "acids") and since our pH balance is slightly alkaline, our bodies need to get rid of any extra protein we subject our systems to. The main way is to leach calcium from our bones to neutralize the acid. This leads to problems such as osteoporsis and kidney stones. A healthy plant-based diet can provide all the protein we need while meats, eggs and cheese provide too high of a protein load. This, combined with the risk of cancer and other diseases, has led me to believe the less animal foods consumed the better...and no animal foods consumed the best. Good luck! :)


In addition to the overall protein load, there is the fact that animal protein is higher in sulfur-containing amino acids, which require more buffering. I've seen studies that show that the nature of the protein one consumes is important. For instance:
http://www.vegsource.com/articles/prote ... _study.htm

I know you aren't a post-menopausal woman, Ted, but this is the study I could readily find :D
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. --
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
User avatar
DianeR
 
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:29 am

Re: Vegetarian verses other diets

Postby JeffN » Tue Jan 08, 2008 7:13 am

Greetings!

I was directed here by someone asking me if I would directly respond to this issue.

Ted W Bishop wrote:I find myself questioning my previous concept of a “good diet” that I have learned at SDSU and from other sources like Dr. Nicholas Perricone. The teaching about Dr. McDougal and a no fat, vegetarian diet to greatly reduce risk of disease and to control it is thought provoking. The largest question I have is it necessary to be vegetarian to accomplish this? Could the similar or the same result be achieved by Dr. Nicholas Perricone approach with limited amount organic meat form wild Salomon and range free Chicken breast and there eggs using the white of the egg primarily.


You ask a great question.

BTW, you may want to check into the background of Dr Perricone and you can do so here..

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/perricone.html

His work is full of statements that are questionable, unverifiable, and erroneous.

In regard to your question, if I understand it correctly, is there any benefit to 100% plant diet vs a (lets say) 95-99% plant based diet, with both of them being planned as healthy as possible.

Unfortunately, no one knows for sure. There is lots of evidence that dramatically reducing the amount of animal food in ones diet and dramatically increasing the amount of plant food in ones diet brings tremendous health benefits, especially if the plant food is based on unrefined/unprocessed plant foods that are in their more natural state without all the added sodium, refined sugars, and/or saturated fat, hydrogenated fat or trans fat. However, I do not know of any evidence that making it 100% is required for it to be optimal in regard to the health benefits. It doesnt mean someone couldnt choose to do so, as there plenty of evidence that a 100% plant based diet can be more than adequate.

Some of the studies and research mentioned above definitely supports the concept that less animal food in ones diet is better, and gives lots of support to the notion that the more plants the better, but unfortunately, none of it shows that none is best. Why? there was no vegan groups in these study.

However, here have been some studies done on vegans to determine this (The Seventh-Day Adventist Church Health Study), and some of the best data comes out of the work done on the Seventh Day Adventist. From their studies

http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/index.html

The Seventh-Day Adventist Church Health Study is the only major ongoing study on the general health and mortality of vegetarians in the U.S. Data was collected from 1976-1988. Of the 34,192 participants, all members of the Seventh-day Adventist church: 29 percent were vegetarian, while 7-10 percent of the vegetarians were vegan.

(NOTE: This equates to about 2% of them being vegans, however the results are on all of the Seventh Day Adventists who were studies and not just the vegans)

Research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health has shown that the average Adventist in California lives four to ten years longer than the average Californian. The research, as cited by the cover story of the November 2005 issue of National Geographic magazine, asserts that Adventists live longer due to not smoking or drinking, and their healthy, low-fat vegetarian diet rich in nuts and beans. The cohesiveness of Adventists' social networks has also been put forward as an explanation of their extended lifespan.

Also...

Seventh-day Adventists are less likely to smoke and may exercise more than the typical person in the US. Many follow a vegetarian diet; nearly 30% of the subjects were vegetarians, and another 20% described themselves as semi-vegetarian (ate meat fewer than one time per week but more than once per month). At birth, an infant who would grow up to be a California Adventist male would be expected to live 78.5 years, a female California Adventist, 82.3 years. If the California Adventist was also vegetarian, life expectancy at birth increased to 80.2 years for men and 84.8 years for women. Compare this to a US male whose life expectancy at birth is 73 years and a US female who can expect to live 79.7 years.


The following is from Diet, Life Expectancy and Chronic Disease. Studies of Seventh-Day Adventists and Other Vegetarians. Gary E Fraser. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, from the chapter Risk Factors and Diseases among Vegans, page 239...

(NOTE: Gary is the guy who did much of the research on the Seventh Day Adventists and knows the data very well.)

1. Vegans are thinner than other vegetarians

2. Levels of blood cholesterol and of blood LDL cholesterol are lower in vegans than in other vegetarians. HDL levels may also be lower, but the evidence is not consistent.

3. Blood pressure levels in vegans appear to be modestly, but significantly lower than those in other vegetarians. This statement is based mainly on a large British data set.

4. Data on other risk factors are too sparse to allow meaningful comparisons between vegans and others.

5. Conclusions about disease events among vegans are also hampered by the low numbers of subjects in studies. but it seems unlikely that there are large differences in disease experiences between vegans and other vegetarians. Studies than include more vegans would be necessary to detect any small or moderate differences. The California Adventist results did raise the possibility of higher cancer mortality in vegans (with a borderline statistical significance), but this needs confirmation from other studies to carry much conviction.

(NOTE: I do not know of any other evidence supporting the cancer issue and a healthy vegan diet is in line with most all dietary recommendations to reduce cancer risk)

In addition, while I can not speak for any individual or author, the Ornish diet is not and never was vegan, neither was the Pritikin diet, and neither is the recommendations in Eat To Live. However, all of them include vegan recommendations/options.

Now, having been a vegan for around 30 years, I am not arguing against veganism, I am only trying to help answer a valid question.

Remember, veganism is not a diet. Veganism is clear on exactly what not to eat, but not so clear on exactly what to eat. It is a philosophy that includes dietary restrictions. However, in and of itself, these dietary restrictions may not always be healthy. You can live on potato chips, French fries and ketchup and still be a vegan, but you wouldn't be healthy. A vegan diet, to be healthy, still has to follow certain health guidelines and principles. While there are differing variations on how to do best to that, in the end, most of the differences are minor and the basic concepts are similar. These health issues have nothing to do with the moral/ethical issues on why some people choose to become a vegan.

In regard to the Omega 3/6/9 issue, most of what we here is blow way out of proportion. A healthy plant based diet can provide plenty of essential fats all in the right ratios.

In regard to the quote of mine on the old book: many people do suffer from gluten intolerance to grains, and do better without the gluten containing ones (wheat, rye, oats, barley) and I for one am who finds the less of these grains the better. According to results that came out about a year ago from Dr. Alessio Fasano's Celiac Disease Center at the University of Maryland, the incidence of formal gluten intolerance is estimated to be about 1 in 133 in America and the incidence may even be higher as this rate is for the formally diagnosed disease and there may be many others who have a milder form of intolerance and/or sensitivity. I do still include some "intact" whole grains, and you can find some great article on this issue at my website.

My recommendation in regard to the question: For health, focus on the 95-99% and not the 1%

Wishing you all the best of health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Next

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.