Archive for Active No-Carber Forums A veggie-free zone
 

What's new? The latest myff announcements


       Active No-Carber Forums Forum Index -> Naysayers & Contrarians
Avalon

Opinions Please

I'd really like to know what y'all think about this. Is he's just plain wrong. If so why and how can we trust any of the studies we read.

The Protein debate Is what? Oh God Deja Vu! How is animal protein different than plant protein? Doesn't it all get dissassembled and reassembled into what we need? If so can you show me proof of this? More studies? More Doctors?

Just thinking out loud. You know me Shock

Here's the article and it's link:


Quote:
Response to NY Times Story: Death by Veganism

The New York Times today (May 21, 2007) carried an Op-Ed piece about the dangers of a vegan diet, titled "Death by Veganism," that deserves an immediate response:

For the original article see:
Death by Veganism - New York Times

This article, written by Nina Planck, who is identified as a food writer and expert on farmers markets and local food, stems from the case of a recent murder conviction of parents who starved their 6 week old child to death by feeding him a diet of apple juice and soy milk. She writes on her web site, "Among many sources for this piece, I interviewed a family practitioner who treats many vegetarian and vegan families."

For the story of the child's death see:
http://www.news4jax.com/news/13286030/detail.html

Here is the 150 word letter to the editor that I sent to the New York Times (chances of publication by the newspaper are obviously small):

Nina Planck's article condemning vegan diet contains serious errors concerning the adequacy of plant foods. Plants do contain all the essential amino acids in adequate quantities to meet human needs, and even those of children (Millward). Vitamin D is not found in milk or meat, unless it is added during manufacturing. Sunlight is the proper source of this vitamin. Plants manufacture beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. The original source of all minerals (including calcium and zinc) is the ground. Plants are abundant in minerals; and they act as the conduit of minerals to animals. The scientific truth is protein, essential amino acid, mineral, and vitamin (except for B12 which is synthesized by bacteria, not animals) deficiencies are never caused by a diet based on whole plant foods when calorie needs are met. Ms. Planck's distortion of nutritional science is a serious matter that needs to be fixed.

Reference: Millward DJ. The nutritional value of plant-based diets in relation to human amino acid and protein requirements. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 May;58(2):249-60.

Addition comments not sent to the newspaper.

Nina Planck writes: "You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants."

The scientific truth is: Babies at 6 weeks of age require human breast milk and any other diet means malnutrition. Imagine if the exact opposite approach killed an infant with a formula made of pulverized beef and cow's milk, would this have received similar worldwide press? I believe the case would have been properly considered child neglect (intentional or not) and have gone unnoticed except for those intimately involved. "People love to hear good news about their bad habits" so the tragedy of the death of an infant caused by misguided parents who fed their infant apple juice and soy milk for the first 6 weeks of life has been used to justify eating meat and drinking cow's milk.

Nina Planck writes: Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as "first class" (from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and "second class" (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.

The scientific truth is: Confusion about our protein needs came from studies of the nutritional needs of animals. Mendel and Osborne in 1913 reported rats grew better on animal, than on vegetable, sources of protein. A direct consequence of their studies resulted in meat, eggs, and dairy foods being classified as superior, or "Class A" protein sources and vegetable proteins designated as inferior, or "Class B" proteins. Seems no one considered that rats are not people. One obvious difference in their nutritional needs is rat milk is 11 times more concentrated in protein than is human breast milk. The extra protein supports this animal's rapid growth to adult size in 5 months; while humans take 17 years to fully mature. The world's authority on human protein needs, Prof. Joseph Millward, wrote the following: "Contrary to general opinion, the distinction between dietary protein sources in terms of the nutritional superiority of animal over plant proteins is much more difficult to demonstrate and less relevant in human nutrition." (References in my April 2007 newsletter.)

Nina Planck writes: The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality — even soy.

The scientific truth is: Proteins function as structural materials which build the scaffoldings that maintain cell shapes, enzymes which catalyze biochemical reactions, and hormones which signal messages between cells—to name only a few of their vital roles. Since plants are made up of structurally sound cells with enzymes and hormones, they are by nature rich sources of proteins. In fact, so rich are plants that they can meet the protein needs of the earth's largest animals: elephants, hippopotamuses, giraffes, and cows. You would be correct to deduce that the protein needs of relatively small humans can easily be met by plants. (References in my April 2007 newsletter.)

Nina Planck writes: Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish.

The scientific truth is: Only plants can synthesize essential fats. Any DHA found in animals had its origin from a plant (as alpha linolenic acid). The human body has no difficulty converting plant-derived omega-3 fat, alpha linolenic acid, into DHA or other n-3 fatty acids, supplying our needs even during gestation and infancy.

Reference: Langdon JH. Has an aquatic diet been necessary for hominin brain evolution and functional development? Br J Nutr. 2006 Jul;96(1):7-17.

Mothers who eat the Western diet pass dangerous loads of environmental contaminants through their breast milk to their infants. Meat, dairy and fish in her diet are the source of 80% to 90% of these toxic chemicals. The cleanest and healthiest milk is made by mothers eating a starch-based vegan diet.

Nina Planck writes: A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium.

The scientific truth is: Infants should be exclusively breast fed until age 6 months and then partially breast fed until approximately 2 years of age. Starches, fruits, and vegetables should be added after the age of 6 months. The addition of cow's milk causes problems as common as constipation and as devastating as type-1 diabetes. (See my May 2003 newsletter on Marketing Milk and Disease.) Adding meat to an infant's diet is one of the main reasons all children raised on the Western diet have the beginnings of atherosclerosis by the age of 2 years.

Nina Planck writes: "An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil."

The scientific truth is: Babies are ideally built from mother's breast milk initially and then from whole foods. Hopefully, parents will realize that the healthiest diet for the entire family (after weaning) is based on starches with the addition of fruits and vegetables. (Vitamin B12 is added to the diet of pregnant or nursing mothers and after 3 years of following a plant-based diet strictly.)

Nina Planck has been allowed by the New York Times to exploit the tragedy of a family and to spread commonly held, but scientifically incorrect, information on human nutrition. The author and the newspaper should be held accountable. Hopefully, the end result will be that people desiring the truth will take the trouble to look at the evidence. If this were to be the case, then this New York Times article could be the beginning of long overdue changes in the ways people eat. Write and tell everyone you know that the New York Times has done a sloppy job, and damage to the public, by allowing harmful lies to be spread—especially when you consider that Planck's message promotes a diet known to cause obesity, type-2 diabetes, heart disease, and major cancers.

John McDougall, MD
www.drmcdougall.com
May 21, 2007
Scout Finch

Oh Christ, isn't it enough that McDougall wrote this piece of tripe? McDougall is a hack. He's got a jacked-up vegan program that he pushes based on observational studies he did in the 1970s of Hawaiian native islanders.

Our brains didn't get to their size and level of neuronal functioning by eating a 100% plant diet. There's just no way the caloric and fat requirements could be met that way.
Avalon

I knew that Cool
Avalon

Hey, hold on!

Some believe it was Cooking that allowed us to get more nutrients and eat more food and stuff. Grow bigger brains. Not just marrow and fish and stuff. And stuff.
EricaB

The parents-- you know, I'm torn between feeling sorry for them-- and wanting to slap them into the middle of next week, because they just bought a line of bull that ended up killing their son. Wow.

I agree that McDougall is a "hack". Worse, he's promoting a very dangerous lifestyle.
adwred

So if a vegan diet is appropriate for human consumption, then why did this infant die again? This is not even worth arguing, IMO. We're not even talking lacto-ovo, here, we're talking vegan. There is zero evidence of vegan primitive or even traditional societies for good reason.
Avalon

Red wrote:
Quote:
So if a vegan diet is appropriate for human consumption, then why did this infant die again? This is not even worth arguing,

Did you even read it? The parents obviously were stupid. Like a guy who gets into a plane and tries to fly it without any training. Or with bad training. He'll crash. The child died because the Parents didn't do their job.

Adwred, seriously, would you feed an infant no carbohydrates? No Breast milk? None. Would that be sound? Good Parents, Vegan or otherwise wouldn't have done what they did. Does The Bears occasional rudeness mean all no carbers are rude?

Please!

Quote:
Prosecutors claimed the baby suffered a prolonged and painful death, not because of what he was fed, but because he was fed too little and that his nutritional needs were deliberately ignored by his parents. They prosecutors said the couple intentionally neglected their child and refused to take him to the doctor even as the baby's body wasted away.


Where was the BREAST MILK!

The Baby was born in their bath tub!

They probably invented the Vegan story just to save themselves!
Avalon

Honestly, what I was hoping for were some opinions on his numerous scientifc truth comments that actually seemed somewhat logical to me.
Scout Finch

Okay, I'll bite.

What I always see in these discussions of veganism is the tired old argument about amino acids and protein levels. It never fails. This argument seems to be all they have, because they can fall back on the cholesterol-as-danger argument, the "animal products are a toxic package" argument, and the now-debunked and unfounded claims about bone loss, calcium depletion, and all the rest of it.

But what vegans can't do, at least I've never seen them do it - what they can't do is appropriately address the insulin issue when they come up against the meat-eating argument. I've not seen these discussions around, but I don't go looking for them, either.

Continuing to focus on the protein/amino issue in the veganism debate is missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue is insulin. Nobody in a Western country is going to be protein deprived, no matter what diet they follow. Maybe a fruitarian wouldn't get enough, but anybody else - omni, vegan, carnivore - is going to get at the very minimum adequate protein levels. Maybe not optimal, but adequate. The reason is because practically every food available to us contains some protein, even if it's in small amounts. Except for fruits. Hell, if you eat enough rice and beans (starches!!), you probably would get adequate levels.

But it's the insulin debate the vegans never seem to get engaged in. McDougall especially is advocating a high-starch diet. It's no secret that many folks who have followed McDougall and Ornish have had skyrocketing triglyceride levels. I knew a guy whose doctor told him to get off the Ornish diet and start eating meat because his triglycerides were out of control. It seems to be a common complaint on the McDougall forum as well. (Many of the folks posting about this problem are simply told they aren't "doing the diet correctly.") TGs go through the roof for many people - how could they not? You are talking about a diet that is 80-90% CHO. 80-90%!! That is no joke.

And that is a hell of a lot of sugar being dumped into your system every day. Sugar that your body has to deal with somehow, some way. And as you continue on this kind of diet, day after day, year after year, what the hell could that be doing to your insulin response system? Maybe setting up some people for insulin resistance, or worse, diabetes. Maybe causing wildly fluctuating blood sugar swings so that the person has cravings, long periods of hunger, inability to control the appetite, mood changes, weight gain - whatever acute symptoms come up for people around their blood sugar problems.

So what say the vegans on the insulin issue? Can they reconcile that one? Especially as more and more research comes out about the importance of controlling insulin and blood sugar levels?

The protein issue ... not so important. It's time to throw that argument under the bus. Like I said, if you eat enough healthy stuff, you'll probably at least meet the RDA or the WHO level (minimal) requirements for protein. Forget the protein. Focus on the insulin in the arguments about veganism.
Avalon

Good Morning Scout, and thanx! I appreciate this Big Hug

This might sound stupid, perhaps, but if my insulin was whacked because of all the starch, that would show up on a glucose meter right? And I will admit to being Trygliciride ignorant, but will look into it because I want to know, not just follow.

It's seriously only the last two years that I have been so concerned about eating animal flesh. And just yesterday, regardless of my desire not to hurt animals by eating them, I felt that at the very least some meat or fish should be eaten daily or weekly- once in a blue moon.

I can't help thinking 'Man' has perverted the whole food scheme of things somehow. That we're too lazy to figure out how greens, fruits and nuts could sustain us- and the idea that animals have done all the work for us is a kind of good reason to keep eating them.

I'm sorry if I got a bit hot under the collar. I don't have a formed opinion of McDougall yet, at least where I can argue for tryglicerides or anything, but if he is a quack for pushing starchy veggies, to me that still doesn't negate the entire Vegan/Vegetarian world which has been around a long time.

If it's not possible to be healthy as a Vegan now, it doesn't mean we may not find a way to make it work. And I know it's all a big mess. What happens when we stop raising animals a feed? Population control? What happens to all the land we've gutted for their use?

I need a drink Yup Toast
adwred

Avalon wrote:
...The child died because the Parents didn't do their job.

Adwred, seriously, would you feed an infant no carbohydrates? No Breast milk? None. Would that be sound? Good Parents, Vegan or otherwise wouldn't have done what they did. Does The Bears occasional rudeness mean all no carbers are rude?

Please!


Huh? Confused Of course I'd feed my child breast milk. When have I ever said anything about feeding an infant or even a child zero-carb?

Of course I read the article. I wish I hadn't Roll Eyes - I could have saved myself considerable frustration. Xeta, my anger isn't directed at you - it's directed at this quack of a doctor. So after 2 years of breast milk, all bets are off and parents should be free to feed their kids vegan, as long as they're 'responsible' about it? Two years old? And a growing toddler is supposed to get enough calories/protein/fat to grow, how? Nevermind the constant influx of insulin, as Scout mentioned. So feeding a child meat causes them to develop atherosclerosis by age 2? Please, indeed...

This is why it's not worth discussing, to me. There's just too much to say. Too much to be drop-jawed about. I know you're not implying that children should be fed vegan, just like I know you can't really be implying that I am saying babies need to be fed a zero-carb, meat-only, breastmilk-free diet.

I don't feel that this doctor can defend a vegan diet by saying that it wasn't the cause of this baby's death. Whether veganism was or wasn't the cause of this poor baby's malnourishment, by feeding any child a vegan diet, even after he or she is off the breast, you're compromising his or her health.
Scout Finch

Quote:
but if he is a quack for pushing starchy veggies, to me that still doesn't negate the entire Vegan/Vegetarian world which has been around a long time.


It certainly does negate the entire argument, at least as far as the veganism part. Vegetarianism - different story, since I guess some of these people eat eggs and dairy. Hell, some of them I hear eat chicken and fish, but still call themselves vegetarians.

Where would you expect to get your calories as a vegan if not from starches? Starchy foods, like the grains, root veggies, and beans, are the most calorically dense in the plant world, aren't they? You'd have to eat a hell of a lot of broccoli and romaine to get the same calorie levels as you could from starches. Frankly, I don't think it can be done. Fuhrman's plan includes beans and grains, if I'm not mistaken.

Again, I'm just talking about meeting caloric levels, not anything about nutrients or lack of them. How long could you sustain yourself eating "leafy greens and green veggies" as your primary source of calories? I'd say not very long. For starters, you'd be eating all day, so you wouldn't have time to do anything else. The fiber levels alone could cause major problems for people, knocking them off the diet. The lack of satiety would have to be considered as a factor as well.

My gut feeling about McDougall is that he doesn't follow his own plan. If he truly has been a strict vegan since the 1970s, he'd be looking a lot worse than the photos I've seen of him. Have you seen photos of Ornish lately? It's clear he's fallen off "his" diet - he's overweight. And these guys pitched these plans to deal with overweight issues. Ornish's book became a bestseller, IIRC.

The roots of veganism are political, and not based on sound nutritional science. A lot of that shit got started around here - across the Bay in Berkeley during the 1960s and early 1970s, when the "co-op" movement arose so the hippie-dippie people could get fresh fruits and veggies locally grown. This crowd made a point of politicizing the debate about food, e.g., why do we eat so high on the food chain when developing countries have starving people? This was the post Vietnam era. There was a lot of awareness and activism around U.S. foreign policy because of what happened in Vietnam. People were more aware of how the U.S. military shit on poor countries around the world. Our consciousness was being raised about the differences between the first world, the second word, the third world. And some of the activists and concerned crowds policitized the food around these larger global issues. There's nothing wrong with doing that. Just don't say it's sound nutrition, that's all.

And I was around when it was happening here, avalon. I lived in Berkeley while I was in school there starting in 1977, and that co-op stuff was hitting its apex right around then. It was a big deal to be a "vegetarian." Guilt trips galore about eating meat. I still remember going to parties where there were, not by accident, no animal products being served, and everybody thought it was the fucking bomb. They were all so "cool" because they were vegetarians. Please.

Color me unconvinced, avalon. But if you try it, tell us how it goes!

       Active No-Carber Forums Forum Index -> Naysayers & Contrarians
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum