Stupid question... are vegetarians shorter than meat eaters? - Page 2

[tboroson]

Originally Posted by scoobers

Have you read The China Study?

I'll read that one, thank you

Originally Posted by scoobers

I'm curious why you think children up to 3 or 4 need animal fat?

Because worldwide, most children are nursed to that age - getting "animal fat" from breastmilk. In the US, it's so common to wean well before that. If a child is weaned before 3 or 4, I do feel it's important to replace those fats from the breastmilk with animal fats. But, in a breastfed toddler, I don't think it's critical. I think it can be a good boost to supplement with things like egg yolks, but I don't think it's nearly as important as supplementing a child who was weaned before that age.

[moonfirefaery]

5' meat-eater here

[PikkuMyy]

It's silly.

Vegetarian and vegan children can get B-12 from fortified foods as well as BM, and Omega-3 from DHA supplements made from marine plants (for those who say that flax isn't enough.)

While I plan to BF my children well into toddlerhood, I am not buying the "must have animal fats" until 3-4 years old, which I am seeing more and more on this forum. I've been posting in N&GE for several years and this is recent. Before that it was 1-2 years. I realize that research grows but it sure seems hard for those raising vegan kids to meet anyone's approval.

[scoobers]

Originally Posted by tboroson

Because worldwide, most children are nursed to that age - getting "animal fat" from breastmilk. In the US, it's so common to wean well before that. If a child is weaned before 3 or 4, I do feel it's important to replace those fats from the breastmilk with animal fats. But, in a breastfed toddler, I don't think it's critical. I think it can be a good boost to supplement with things like egg yolks, but I don't think it's nearly as important as supplementing a child who was weaned before that age.

Where did you find that statistic? The figures I've seen (WHO, Unicef) say that only 1 in 3 infants is exclusively breastfed to 6 months in the developing world (much less in the developed world). The figures for extended BF are hard to come by. The WHO seems to only track up to 23 months and, with the exception of some of the African countries, most infants are weaned before 20 months.
I would agree that extended BF'ing is good, especially in those countries with high rates of malnutrition due to poor food supply/poverty.
What is it about animal fats that though that you think is essential for children under 4?

[GooeyRN]

I hated meat growing up. But my parents did manage to get a few bites into me from time to time. I later became a lacto veggie. I am 5'4", which is taller than the other females in my family. I have "heard" that veggies grow slower than their meat eating peers, but end up about the same height.

[Benji'sMom]

Originally Posted by melissa17s

I read stats. before that vegetarian children averaged the same heights as omni. I think genetics plays a larger role assuming a child is eating generally healthy foods.

I definitely agree, it's just genetics. I am a 5'1 meat eater from a family of 5'1 meat eaters. I'm actually taller than my mom, who's taller than her mom. Anyway, point is, we are very short, even our men, and none of us are vegitarian. We're just genetically short, eating meat or not eating meat wouldn't change us, I don't think.

[Chicharronita]

[QUOTE=scoobers;6227661]Have you read The China Study?

*groan* Oh no, not that! I checked it out of the library because someone told me it PROVES that meat causes cancer. Well, it proves no such thing. The "definitive" rat studies he talks about in chapter three were done with the highly processed and isolated milk protein, casein. I don't need rat studies to show me that we should NOT be consuming casein all by itself.

After that I skimmed through a lot of the diet advice with my eyes glazed, but then was awakened when I read the following on page 220:

"“Folic acid is a compound derived exclusively from plant-based foods such as green and leafy vegetables.”

Excuse me? How can someone with his credentials not know that chicken liver and other organ meats have the highest amount of folic acid! After reading that (lie? ignorant statement?) I put the book down.

I have to admit, I'm not much of a number-cruncher, but I heard about a few sites that were critical of the study because these reviewers read the actual monograph from the study (which is NOT available in the book). When you look at the REAL numbers from the study, there is little statistical correlation between consuming meat and cancer:

"The Truth About the China Study"
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

"Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality.

The only statistically significant association between intake of a macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!28"

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by PikkuMyy

Vegetarian and vegan children can get B-12 from fortified foods as well as BM, and Omega-3 from DHA supplements made from marine plants (for those who say that flax isn't enough.)

The problem with flax and other plant supplements is that it only provides ALA, which your body has to convert into DHA and AHA. In a lot of cases, depending on your health, the conversion is inadequate. Even when you're optimally healthy, it's estimated that you convert only 20%.

[talk de jour]

5' omni here

[scoobers]

[QUOTE=Chicharronita;6236170]

Originally Posted by scoobers

Have you read The China Study?

*groan* Oh no, not that! I checked it out of the library because someone told me it PROVES that meat causes cancer. Well, it proves no such thing. The "definitive" rat studies he talks about in chapter three were done with the highly processed and isolated milk protein, casein. I don't need rat studies to show me that we should NOT be consuming casein all by itself.

<snip>

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

After that I skimmed through a lot of the diet advice with my eyes glazed, but then was awakened when I read the following on page 220:

Translation: I didn't actually READ the book, just read something that the WAFP people claimed about the book...

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

"“Folic acid is a compound derived exclusively from plant-based foods such as green and leafy vegetables.”

Excuse me? How can someone with his credentials not know that chicken liver and other organ meats have the highest amount of folic acid! After reading that (lie? ignorant statement?) I put the book down.

Presumably what he was talking about is that folic acid is derived from plant-based foods. Folate: from the latin folium, leaf. (Where do you suppose the folic acid stored in the chicken liver comes from?) This sentence you quote (which is actually on page 221 BTW) is talking about a study of Alzheimer's disease where people whose blood folic acid levels were in the lowest one third had a 3.3X greater chance of the disease and those with blood homocysteine (an amino acid derived primarily from animal protein) levels in the highest one third had a 4.5X greater risk. The point he was making was that the combination of a diet high in animal based foods (high blood homocysteine) and low in plant-based foods (low folic acid) raised the risk for Alzheimers. I personally don't know of a single person who eats either chicken liver or organ meats, maybe you do. Most people get their folic acid from vegetable sources, enriched breads/cereals, or supplements.

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

I have to admit, I'm not much of a number-cruncher, but I heard about a few sites that were critical of the study because these reviewers read the actual monograph from the study (which is NOT available in the book). When you look at the REAL numbers from the study, there is little statistical correlation between consuming meat and cancer:

"The Truth About the China Study"
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

"Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality.

The only statistically significant association between intake of a macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!28"

Let's see, the guy who wrote that review, Chris Masterjohn, is what a pre-med student? Oh, and what a surprise he's a chapter leader at WAPF! Go figure! Of course their tremendous scientific research is based on the simplistic observations of a dentist from Cleveland...in the 1930's...

I place more value in the research of T. Colin Campbell, Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell personally.

BTW: the monograph of the study is 896 pages long. He was obviously trying to hide something by not adding it onto the end of the book. : Oh, wait it's available online at: http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/Chi...lications.html

You might want to try reading the book vs. reading what the WAPF mouthpieces have to say about it.

BTW: Here's a bit of info on Weston A. Price from Quackwatch.

[Gale Force]

[QUOTE=scoobers;6239361]

Presumably what he was talking about is that folic acid is derived from plant-based foods. .... I personally don't know of a single person who eats either chicken liver or organ meats, maybe you do. Most people get their folic acid from vegetable sources, enriched breads/cereals, or supplements.

And this is, in fact, the problem that Masterjohn was pointing to. People over time have gotten their folate from organ meats and vegetables. And now you can say "I've met this strange person online who got her folate today from beef liver and heart and her name is Gale Force." Beef heart soup for breakfast and liver and onions for lunch. It's been an organ-meat kind of week.

Of course their tremendous scientific research is based on the simplistic observations of a dentist from Cleveland...in the 1930's...

And you have read Price's work I presume? We should have a thread where we can discuss it. I would find that very interesting. I am trying to gather some of his primary data to do my own analysis.

BTW: the monograph of the study is 896 pages long. He was obviously trying to hide something by not adding it onto the end of the book. : Oh, wait it's available online at: http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/Chi...lications.html

Don't tease me, scoobers, that the study is online. That's a list of publications that are derived from the study. If it is online, I would be grateful to anyone who can point me there. Otherwise, I hope it is in the stacks on my next Berkeley trip then we can have another thread about that research.

You might want to try reading the book vs. reading what the WAPF mouthpieces have to say about it.

I don't know where you would rather have the thread on the Weston Price research. Why don't you start it in any forum you think appropriate and link to it from here.

[PikkuMyy]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

The problem with flax and other plant supplements is that it only provides ALA, which your body has to convert into DHA and AHA. In a lot of cases, depending on your health, the conversion is inadequate. Even when you're optimally healthy, it's estimated that you convert only 20%.

Yes, I have heard that. Which is why I suggested buying actual DHA supplements.

[Gale Force]

Originally Posted by scoobers

Presumably what he was talking about is that folic acid is derived from plant-based foods. Folate: from the latin folium, leaf. (Where do you suppose the folic acid stored in the chicken liver comes from?)

Really, scoobers, it's either in organs or it's not. Everything comes from the earth.

This sentence you quote (which is actually on page 221 BTW) is talking about a study of Alzheimer's disease where people whose blood folic acid levels were in the lowest one third had a 3.3X greater chance of the disease and those with blood homocysteine (an amino acid derived primarily from animal protein) levels in the highest one third had a 4.5X greater risk. The point he was making was that the combination of a diet high in animal based foods (high blood homocysteine) and low in plant-based foods (low folic acid) raised the risk for Alzheimers.

I just ordered The China Study this week and am planning to read The China Project on my next trip to Berkeley, so this thread is really timely. I am eagerly awaiting the books because these translations so far are wetting my appetite. So low folate = cancer risk and high homocysteine = cancer risk. I'll tell you something really interesting about high homocysteine levels, scoobers, they are associated with low levels of B-12, B-6, and folate. B-12 and B-6 are both found much more abundantly in the animal world. And something even more interesting: low B-12 status can deplete your body of folate. So, the liver eaters among us may be better off in reducing our cancer risk.

[newcastlemama]

Amanda-If you can, tell us what you find through your research.

I was thinking it may not be a veggie or omni thing for height. My (very small) observations in my family is that the less picky eaters were taller. I am 5'7.5" and my sister is 5'9". She did not restrict calories, food groups, or anything while growing up how I did. My one brother is 6' and the other is 6'3". The shorter one was a very picky eater and was too active to remember to sit down and eat. My uncle who dieted because he was a wrestler is 5'10 and his brothers are 6'1"-- 6'3".

From these observations it was calories consumed that seemed to make people taller.

Interesting thread,
Jennifer

[scoobers]

[QUOTE=Gale Force;6240930]

Originally Posted by scoobers

And this is, in fact, the problem that Masterjohn was pointing to. People over time have gotten their folate from organ meats and vegetables. And now you can say "I've met this strange person online who got her folate today from beef liver and heart and her name is Gale Force." Beef heart soup for breakfast and liver and onions for lunch. It's been an organ-meat kind of week.

And therein lies my point. Chicarronita was simply regurgitating the WAPF party line response spouted by Mr. Masterjohn vs. having actually read the book.
And, yeah, if strange means in the minority then you are strange but hey...I am too. You may eat heart and liver but the vast majority of Americans do not. I can't personally recall ever having seen either of those things on any menu in any restaurant. Then again I'm in California and we're mostly a bunch of bleeding-heart-tree-hugging-animal-lovers who subsist exclusively on tofu. MOST Americans get their folic acid from leafy green or enriched sources or supplements.

Originally Posted by Gale Force

And you have read Price's work I presume? We should have a thread where we can discuss it. I would find that very interesting. I am trying to gather some of his primary data to do my own analysis.

I've read enough of it to find it ridiculous. So, he traveled around taking pictures of peoples teeth and noting that they had straight teeth despite not brushing them? Uh, I would think that had quite a bit to do with genetics personally rather than whether they ate RAW meat.

Here's a little tidbit taken off of the WAPF website on some cat experimentation done by one of his cronies:

Like Price, Pottenger was also a researcher. He decided to perform adrenalectomy on cats and then fed them the adrenal cortex extract he prepared for his patients in order to test its effectiveness. Unfortunately most of the cats died during the operation. He conceived of an experiment in which one group of cats received only raw milk and raw meat, while other groups received part of the diet as pasteurized milk or cooked meat. He found that only those cats whose diet was totally raw survived the adrenalectomy and as his research progressed, he noticed that only the all-raw group continued in good health generation after generation--they had excellent bone structure, freedom from parasites and vermin, easy pregnancies and gentle dispositions. All of the groups whose diet was partially cooked developed "facial deformities" of the exact same kind that Price observed in human groups on the "displacing foods of modern commerce"--narrowed faces, crowded jaws, frail bones and weakened ligaments. They were plagued with parasites, developed all manner of diseases and had difficult pregnancies. Female cats became aggressive while the males became docile. After just three generations, young animals died before reaching adulthood and reproduction ceased.

Exactly what does that have to do with humans and their diet?? Geez I guess lucky for his patients he experimented on some cats before feeding them adrenal cortex extract.

And where, pray tell, IS this "research" done by Weston Price??? All I see on their site Sally Fallon's summary of it.

Originally Posted by Gale Force

Don't tease me, scoobers, that the study is online. That's a list of publications that are derived from the study. If it is online, I would be grateful to anyone who can point me there. Otherwise, I hope it is in the stacks on my next Berkeley trip then we can have another thread about that research.

Here you go.

Originally Posted by Gale Force

I don't know where you would rather have the thread on the Weston Price research. Why don't you start it in any forum you think appropriate and link to it from here.

Actually, I wouldn't. As I've stated before, WAPF is a rabidly anti-vegetarian and makes ridiculous, unfounded claims about vegetarianism.

[scoobers]

Originally Posted by Gale Force

Really, scoobers, it's either in organs or it's not. Everything comes from the earth.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this. I was pointing out that while, yes, liver has it, it's derived from the plant foods that the animal ate.

Originally Posted by Gale Force

I just ordered The China Study this week and am planning to read The China Project on my next trip to Berkeley, so this thread is really timely. I am eagerly awaiting the books because these translations so far are wetting my appetite. So low folate = cancer risk and high homocysteine = cancer risk. I'll tell you something really interesting about high homocysteine levels, scoobers, they are associated with low levels of B-12, B-6, and folate. B-12 and B-6 are both found much more abundantly in the animal world. And something even more interesting: low B-12 status can deplete your body of folate. So, the liver eaters among us may be better off in reducing our cancer risk. If you would like to come over for lunch, scoobers, I've got liver from a steer who grew up two miles from here. It's very tender. The best liver I've tasted.

Actually, B6 is readily available in plant foods, it's B12 that's not but it is available in fortified cereals, plant milks and supplements. Vegans should be aware of this and take steps to ensure they get enough B12. And, yes, high homocysteine levels are frequently associated with low levels of folic acid. Could that be because those people eat a diet high in animal products (high homocysteine) and low in folic acid (plant foods)?
Folic acid can mask B12 difficiency symptoms but I hadn't heard that it would deplete your body of folate. Do you have a reference?

Here's a link to an article on homocysteine and folate. BTW: I notice they don't mention chicken livers or organ meat either. It must be a part of the vast vegetarian conspiracy!!

P.S. I'll pass on the cow liver lunch. :Puke Maybe you'd like to come over and have a tofu-spinach pie with me and we can watch a PETA video together??

[Gale Force]

[QUOTE=scoobers;6242173]

Originally Posted by Gale Force

Then again I'm in California and we're mostly a bunch of bleeding-heart-tree-hugging-animal-lovers who subsist exclusively on tofu.

Good, then you may be able to come for lunch after all.

Uh, I would think that had quite a bit to do with genetics personally rather than whether they ate RAW meat.

Here's a little tidbit taken off of the WAPF website on some cat experimentation done by one of his cronies:

You're confusing the scholars. Price was about vitamins A and D. Pottenger was about raw meat. The Pottenger studies are interesting even if they are on cats.

And where, pray tell, IS this "research" done by Weston Price??? All I see on their site Sally Fallon's summary of it.

I'm glad you asked. You are confusing the WAPF led by Sally Fallon with Price's actual research. Someone will read this thread and point you to Price's book online and you can take a look at it. Price was not anti-vegetarian and actually seemed to be an all-around good fellow.

Actually, I wouldn't. As I've stated before, WAPF is a rabidly anti-vegetarian and makes ridiculous, unfounded claims about vegetarianism.

My suggestion was that we talk about Price's work, not about the articles on the WAPF website. He's been gone a long time. Sally Fallon started the WAPF in the late 1990s but had no connection to him that I know of otherwise.

I do find it ironic that you are being abusive on this thread to Chicharronita who stated that she checked The China Study out of the library and read it. You've accused her a number of times of not reading it. And lo and behold, not only have you not read Price's work (even though you make claims about its quality on this thread) but you do not even know the difference between his work and Sally Fallon's foundation. Read the research and then we can discuss it.


Here you go.


Thanks for the link. This is great -- I should be able to get focused on what parts of the book I want to look at when I get to Berkeley. I figured the primary data was available but had not found it.

[Gale Force]

You know, scoobers, I would spend more time on this discussion if you could play nice. I've already reported your previous posts. B-6 is in plant foods, but it is not as abundant as in animal foods. Read on folate/folic acid if you are concerned.

Originally Posted by Gale Force

Really, scoobers, it's either in organs or it's not. Everything comes from the earth.

Posted by scoobers

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this. I was pointing out that while, yes, liver has it, it's derived from the plant foods that the animal ate.

scoobers -- all nutrients are derived from the earth. So in that sense, even the liver I am about to eat is plant-based. But if you tell me that folate is only found in plants, one minute on the USDA food database of nutrients can prove you wrong. That's Masterjohn's point -- sloppy, sloppy to make such statements. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how this one statement reflects on the overall quality of the book. And here you are defending a statement that is clearly wrong. Why? Big deal. Move on.

Here's a link to an article on homocysteine and folate. BTW: I notice they don't mention chicken livers or organ meat either. It must be a part of the vast vegetarian conspiracy!!

No one here is talking about conspiracies, so I don't get your reference. Just go to the USDA website and find their nutrient database. Look at the nutrient contents of beef liver. I don't get why this has become a discussion. It's a fact that is easily verified.

In general, scoobers, I'm not going to be concerned about PETA videos or people eating tofu or what people think of the lunch I am about to eat. I have chosen a lifestyle that will put the most nutrients in my body. If I have to hunt or trap to do it, I will. In fact, I will be hunting and trapping this winter.

[Gale Force]

By the way, I doubt that The China Project is online in its entirety, but if anyone does stumble upon it, perhaps they can post it here. The first link is a list of studies using the data, the second is basically the information in the appendix and a link to the primary data.

[Gale Force]

[QUOTE=scoobers;6242173]

Originally Posted by Gale Force

I've read enough of it to find it ridiculous. So, he traveled around taking pictures of peoples teeth and noting that they had straight teeth despite not brushing them? Uh, I would think that had quite a bit to do with genetics personally rather than whether they ate RAW meat.

Just one last OT comment in a string of OT comments:
scoobers -- Read these studies. You cannot even appreciate the irony of your posts as you abuse other posters about not reading The China Study. You do not understand the Price research. If you read any part of it, you need to read it again. It's nothing about raw meat. It's nothing about a link between teeth brushing and straight teeth. He discusses the genetics issue in detail. Once you have read it, let's discuss it. I think it would be fantastic if vegans on this board read the book. I am reading The China Study and would love to have a discussion about that too.