"Death by Veganism" NYT opinion piece - Page 11

[freespirited]

Maybe the article is off-topic after 10 pages of posts, but I just wanted to add that while I don't think veganism=irresponsible feeding of children, I think it is very hard in today's world to get adequate nutrients from a plant-based diet. Perhaps once upon a time we did great as vegans, but today's produce is hardly the same in terms of nutrient content, even the organic stuff, and then add the stressors of modern life that require a much greater nutrient load, well I just see the addition of some free-range, organic animal-based foods as extra insurance. Also, what about the nutrients we need such as B12or B6 that are difficult to get with vegan foods? My personal feeling is that vitamins may do some good but that nothing compares with vitamins assimiliated from foods.

I was a vegan for some time and never felt all that well. I had way more issues with depression and didn't have the mental sharpness I have now that I am eating organic eggs and grass-fed beef. I don't really eat dairy but I am not a big believer in calcium deficiencies. Afterall, Asia doesn't have a huge population of osteoporosis sufferers, as our milk-loving country does. I think osteoporosis could be caused by phosphoric acid, insufficient sunlight, excessive protein, and other causes, rather than lack of dairy. My ex-boyfriend was a very strict vegetarian and ate the occasional eggs and dairy but his diet was extremely carb-heavy and he always had a puffy, pasty look to him that I have read is not uncommon in vegetarians who eat a lot of grain-based foods. I don't know what the ideal diet is for children and adults, but I do believe it isn't veganism or vegetarianism. I also don't believe it is one based on commmerically grown meats and eggs that have concentrations of pesticides and a lack of dha in them. I guess I lean towards nourishing traditions, and so far that seems to be the diet that feels the best for myself, dh and my 3 year old. We also eat a lot of roasted pumpkin seeds. Raw ones just don't agree with my system and it seems they may even produce a deficiency in me, possibly due to enzyme inhibitors. So we have kind of made up our own ideal diet as we go along and I think that is what everyone should do, so long as it includes enough variety that deficiencies are not likely.

I agree there is a lot of ignorance when it comes to people feeding their kids. What is really sad is when parents buy all processed foods. I have a friend who boasted about making "homemade" baby food. It was canned peas and canned fruit pureed in a food processor. She honestly thought she was giving her baby something superior. Another friend is addicted to snack foods and thus her dd has been virtually raised on them. Mini-donuts, copious quantities of sugar-sweetened "juice", nitrate-laden lunch meats, trans fat-laden packaged foods, etc. It makes me so sad and mad. We debate endlessly about formula vs. breasfeeding, and as a breastfeeding mom, I truly believe breastmilk is incalculably superior, but what happens after the first year of baby's life is really important too and can affect a child's development in big ways.

[holyhelianthus]

There are some, but not that many, as far as I know. I'm sure it can be done, but it seems like men tend not to want to put the time and effort in thinking about diet that someone like you probably does.

actually, athletes and body builders think more on what they are putting into their bodies and doing with it than an average SAHM like myself. men or no.

[holyhelianthus]

re- B12
it is found that veg*n don't have a deficiency like is usually argued so this could mean we either 1) do produce a bit of it that hasn't been found 2) are able to store it or 3) that what we can get from bacterias etc is actually an adequate amount.

we need to take into account that a lot of the times we're basing our idea of what we need off of a meat centered diet. it's like basing what a breastfed baby should have off of formula fed babies.

[AJP]

Originally Posted by magstphil

meat centered diet.

I don't think that most of us omnis on this thread are arguing for a "meat centered" diet, but rather for the unique and uniquely-concentrated nutrients in properly-raised animal foods. I agree that most SAD omnis eat way too much meat, and that the current volume of consumption (and waste, which is staggering) probably couldn't be continued if all animal agriculture was pasture-based instead of using the feelot/CAFO/grain-based model.

I've eaten meat with 3 or 4 meals in the past week, out of over 20 meals total, and it was small portions. I wouldn't call that meat centered.

[athansor]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

In a nutshell, yes. Take a look at the pictures taken of the people, teeth, and skulls.

This just kind of seems circular to me....if you have good teeth, you have good health, and you can prove that by observing how good the teeth are.

There's another concern I have as well with this research. If you look at a group of people within a small genetic pool, and determine somehow that the are healthy, and conclude it is due to diet, then can you assume that people with different genetics will reap the same benefit from following that diet?

An analogy: It's reasonable to state that people born with darker skin have a lower probability of developing skin cancer. For many years, the conclusion was that darker skin = protected skin. However, that's not quite correct. Being born with darker skin provides protection, but a light skinned person who darkens their skin through years of sun exposure actually is at an increased risk of skin cancer. This is a pretty recent discovery though, and even when I was young, I was told that a tan would protect against sunburn and skin damage, and often heard the term 'healthy tan'.

So, when someone points out that a certain isolated group of people thrive on a diet, does that mean that all people should adopt that diet to thrive?

These arguments are always kind of interesting to me. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons first, health reasons second, environmental reasons third, and flavor reasons fourth (Since I've become vegetarian, I've gotten very into cooking, trying new foods, etc...and my enjoyment of eating has really grown) I don't really go around 'preaching' veg*nism, but just try to 'lead by example'. My dh still eats meat, but is moving in the veg direction just because he's really enjoying my new found interets in cooking. People I work with say that I'm the healhiest looking veg they've met. I live in a place with very few veg*ns but until I came to the website here, I never really ran into people who were so interested in 'converting' me back to eating meat.

[UUMom]

Originally Posted by athansor

This just kind of seems circular to me....if you have good teeth, you have good health, and you can prove that by observing how good the teeth are.

There's another concern I have as well with this research. If you look at a group of people within a small genetic pool, and determine somehow that the are healthy, and conclude it is due to diet, then can you assume that people with different genetics will reap the same benefit from following that diet?

An analogy: It's reasonable to state that people born with darker skin have a lower probability of developing skin cancer. For many years, the conclusion was that darker skin = protected skin. However, that's not quite correct. Being born with darker skin provides protection, but a light skinned person who darkens their skin through years of sun exposure actually is at an increased risk of skin cancer. This is a pretty recent discovery though, and even when I was young, I was told that a tan would protect against sunburn and skin damage, and often heard the term 'healthy tan'.

So, when someone points out that a certain isolated group of people thrive on a diet, does that mean that all people should adopt that diet to thrive?

These arguments are always kind of interesting to me. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons first, health reasons second, environmental reasons third, and flavor reasons fourth (Since I've become vegetarian, I've gotten very into cooking, trying new foods, etc...and my enjoyment of eating has really grown) I don't really go around 'preaching' veg*nism, but just try to 'lead by example'. My dh still eats meat, but is moving in the veg direction just because he's really enjoying my new found interets in cooking. People I work with say that I'm the healhiest looking veg they've met. I live in a place with very few veg*ns but until I came to the website here, I never really ran into people who were so interested in 'converting' me back to eating meat.

Here is what I am getting from this -- food doesn't matter, well, maybe it matters in this one little tribe. It' more about excersize, and....climate?

So yk, I am not going to worry my pretty little blond head over my pringles and diet coke leanings, as clearly what we eat doesn't matter. There is nothing to be learned from any history. Thise folks with good teeth and 6 ft strapping bodies didn't get there by eating the natural foods native to their area.

"Hello? Dominoes? I'd like to order 3 pizzas with the works. And an order of cheese sticks, and 3 liters of Diet Coke. Yes, that's all. Thanks!" (My native food).

I have seen the light, and it's not about what I eat. I was always worried about that. Never more, I tell you.

[newcastlemama]

There were many different healthy groups on different diets but they all had commonalities. Again, I recommend reading Price work since it is online for free. It was quite life changing for me personally.

I do not care to convert anyone into omnivorism--I would just like to point out there is ample evidence that meat/animal products are not harmful but can actually contribute to optimal health. And one can find animal products that are ethically raised with respect to the animals and the environment.

[catnip]

Originally Posted by newcastlemama

There were many different healthy groups on different diets but they all had commonalities. Again, I recommend reading Price work since it is online for free. It was quite life changing for me personally.

I do not care to convert anyone into omnivorism--I would just like to point out there is ample evidence that meat/animal products are not harmful but can actually contribute to optimal health. And one can find animal products that are ethically raised with respect to the animals and the environment.

There is no "ethical"* and environmentally sound way to produce enough meat to meet market demands with today's population.

Nor would I call a single 80 year-old study "ample evidence."



*I'm not vegan, nor am I an especially fanatic vegetarian, but I would present to you that many people, when it comes down to the reality of killing an animal that has been raised to trust humans and eating pieces of it, feel that it is kind of unethical, no matter how it was treated during it's life span. Do you slaughter your own meat?

[catnip]

Originally Posted by Chicharronita

This is true, but should we accept an inferior diet just because of what may happen in the future?

Barring the fact that I disagree that we are talking about an "inferior" diet, darn skippy we should!

Unless a person, for some reason, has an abnormality (allergies or malabsorbtion difficulties), they should do fine on a well-planned whole-foods diet with little or no animal products.

[newcastlemama]

1. Just because studies/obervations are 80 years old does not mean it was poorly done or that the conclusions drawn are incorrect. How long ago did someone discover the earth was round? Einstein won the nobel prize 85 years ago. Are his physics laws less valid today? I would think older studies could have more credibility because so much "research" is contaminated by special interests $$$.

2. I have eaten fish I have caught. We will raise and slaughter our own meat in the near future here. Though I don't think it will be fun, I don't feel morally wrong slaughtering animals.

3. I am one of those people with multiple food allergies (including milks and eggs). I also have a genetic disorder where my body makes pyrolles that bind to the zinc and b6 that I eat and flush it out. I have also had issues with anemia inthe past, but since I now have inclded red meat as I crave it, I do not seem to have this problem anymore.

4. Even if there is global warming it does not mean that humans cease being biological omnivores. I also don't think meat eating is the cause of all environmental and health problems in the world.

[Nikki98]

Originally Posted by catnip

There is no "ethical"* and environmentally sound way to produce enough meat to meet market demands with today's population.

Nor would I call a single 80 year-old study "ample evidence."



*I'm not vegan, nor am I an especially fanatic vegetarian, but I would present to you that many people, when it comes down to the reality of killing an animal that has been raised to trust humans and eating pieces of it, feel that it is kind of unethical, no matter how it was treated during it's life span. Do you slaughter your own meat?

Well even though Prices' work is 80 years old I think his observations are valid. He actually saw these people, he wasn't off in an lab studying isolated variables. Today you can find thousands of studies to back a wide variety of nutritional ideologies. So just because his work isn't "modern" per say doesn't discount it-in fact I think it gives it his work (his observations) more validity (look at the number of modern studies in which something which was thought beneficial was proven no longer to be and vice versa). Too with my Nigerian friends, I have noticed how wonderful their teeth are and how they do not understand the western love affair with sweets. The eat traditional stews with meats and rice- and they love palm oil.

I know that people says it doesn't matter how an animal is treated if the end for that animal is slaughter for consumption, but I do think it matters how the animal was raised and treated. I think for most of us ominovores on this board, we want quality meat that is raised properly-not the feedlot variety. My grandfather is a hunter and he has slaughtered meat that we have eaten, and I can tell you that hunting your own meat only makes you more appreciative of the source (I know this may seem ironic, but I feel that its true).

I know I too am not trying to convince anyone to eat meat, especially commercial meat (which the FDA is now trying to approve for cloning: another thread), but each of us have to live or lives to the best of our ability.
We all have varying needs (whether it be nutritionally, spiritually, mentally) and we hopefully chose eating habits that will sustain us in such ways. I want to eat well, but my "well" may not be yours-and when we realize that we are all imperfect human beings-this may lead to more compassion, hopefully.

[athansor]

Originally Posted by UUMom

Here is what I am getting from this -- food doesn't matter, well, maybe it matters in this one little tribe. It' more about excersize, and....climate?

So yk, I am not going to worry my pretty little blond head over my pringles and diet coke leanings, as clearly what we eat doesn't matter. There is nothing to be learned from any history. Thise folks with good teeth and 6 ft strapping bodies didn't get there by eating the natural foods native to their area.

"Hello? Dominoes? I'd like to order 3 pizzas with the works. And an order of cheese sticks, and 3 liters of Diet Coke. Yes, that's all. Thanks!" (My native food).

I have seen the light, and it's not about what I eat. I was always worried about that. Never more, I tell you.

I don't see how you are getting that from my post, but maybe I didn't make much sense. What I was trying to say is that while I'm a whole-foods veggie, I keep coming here and reading how I am not eating as well as I should, and that I would be better off if I included meat (even an example of eating meat based meals from a lunchcart). I've also seen statements that indicate cancer and heart disease are more likely for me because I won't eat meat. However, the hard data that is provided seems to keep revolving around teeth. So what I'm saying is not that we should all eat junk food, but that I don't see that the best way to eat is to follow a diet based on the traditional foods of a different culture without at least considering some confounding factors, including genetics. I'm still convinced that the healthiest way to eat is plant based.

[UUMom]

Originally Posted by athansor

I don't see how you are getting that from my post, but maybe I didn't make much sense. What I was trying to say is that while I'm a whole-foods veggie, I keep coming here and reading how I am not eating as well as I should, and that I would be better off if I included meat (even an example of eating meat based meals from a lunchcart). I've also seen statements that indicate cancer and heart disease are more likely for me because I won't eat meat. However, the hard data that is provided seems to keep revolving around teeth.

Nobody in this thread is saying anyone should eat meat. The omnis are talking about tiny amounts of animal foods for *some* peeps.

Nobody is advocating anything in particular-- the omnis are discussing WP (and the fact that some native cultures are/were strappingly healthy in all ways and ate meat) and some research, yes. But even the WP folks are saying there is no one perfect diet for all. Not one person is advocating a 'meat-centered' diet.

[athansor]

Originally Posted by UUMom

Nobody in this thread is saying anyone should eat meat. The omnis are talking about tiny amounts of animal foods for *some* peeps.

Nobody is advocating anything in particular-- the omnis are discussing WP (and the fact that some native cultures are/were strappingly healthy in all ways and ate meat) and some research, yes. But even the WP folks are saying there is no one perfect diet for all. Not one person is advocating a 'meat-centered' diet.

I can get behind that. I'd be happy if people who were omni ate only tiny amounts of animal foods, and if people didn't think veg*n diets were dangerous for people (especially toddlers and infants). It would be great if veg*ns and WP people could get along and share information in the areas where they agree, without any arguments. But if that happened, I don't think this thread would have gotten to be 10 pages long, there wouldn't be horrible editorials in major newspapers bashing vegan diets, and disagreeing with WP would mean that someone like me was by default advocating a diet of pizza and cheese sticks. (although I do admit a bit of a problem with diet coke).

[Chicharronita]

Originally Posted by newcastlemama

1. Just because studies/obervations are 80 years old does not mean it was poorly done or that the conclusions drawn are incorrect. How long ago did someone discover the earth was round? Einstein won the nobel prize 85 years ago. Are his physics laws less valid today? I would think older studies could have more credibility because so much "research" is contaminated by special interests $$$.

2. I have eaten fish I have caught. We will raise and slaughter our own meat in the near future here. Though I don't think it will be fun, I don't feel morally wrong slaughtering animals.

3. I am one of those people with multiple food allergies (including milks and eggs). I also have a genetic disorder where my body makes pyrolles that bind to the zinc and b6 that I eat and flush it out. I have also had issues with anemia inthe past, but since I now have inclded red meat as I crave it, I do not seem to have this problem anymore.

4. Even if there is global warming it does not mean that humans cease being biological omnivores. I also don't think meat eating is the cause of all environmental and health problems in the world.

:

[UUMom]

Athansor, I was trying to be light, and at the same time admit my darkest sometimes cravings. I know I wouldn't be healthy on that. Diet does matter, and diet is going to be different for every individual, depending on the work they do, their ancestry, their age, their current health, growth rate, their ability to process what they need from various foods, allergies etc etc.

I am most comfortable with sustainable Flexitarinism than with any dogma of any one particular way of eating. The world is big and people have varying needs.

Saying that doesn't mean I am advocating the SAD in any way shape or form.

[catnip]

Originally Posted by newcastlemama

1. Just because studies/obervations are 80 years old does not mean it was poorly done or that the conclusions drawn are incorrect. How long ago did someone discover the earth was round? Einstein won the nobel prize 85 years ago. Are his physics laws less valid today? I would think older studies could have more credibility because so much "research" is contaminated by special interests $$$.

Actually, several of Einstein's theories have been discovered to have major flaws, and the ones that don't have been borne up by the vast majority of further research. Can you say that about WAP?

2. I have eaten fish I have caught. We will raise and slaughter our own meat in the near future here. Though I don't think it will be fun, I don't feel morally wrong slaughtering animals.

Back to my original post... I said "many people;" I didn't even say most, though I think that that maybe "most" would be accurate. I think that the vast majority of us, told "you want steak for dinner? Go kill Bessie." would eat something else first. There's a big difference between a wild fish and a warm cow that you've milked every day for 8 years.

3. I am one of those people with multiple food allergies (including milks and eggs). I also have a genetic disorder where my body makes pyrolles that bind to the zinc and b6 that I eat and flush it out. I have also had issues with anemia inthe past, but since I now have inclded red meat as I crave it, I do not seem to have this problem anymore.

4. Even if there is global warming it does not mean that humans cease being biological omnivores. I also don't think meat eating is the cause of all environmental and health problems in the world.

How does your nutrient malabsorbtion and food allergy problem make me, who thrives on a vegetarian diet, a biological omnivore? I've acknowleged that there are people with health problems that may not thrive on a vegan diet.

Heavy animal food consumption has a major impact on the environment. It may not be the only factor, but it is a major one. Yes, pastured meat/dairy is better, but no one has told me how exactly we're supposed to replace the meat consumption of 300 million Americans (less the about 3-5% of us that don't eat meat, as opposed to nearly 20% in Europe) with sustainable, organic pastured meat?

[avendesora]

I think we all agree that factory farming is rough on the environment.

I wonder though, if anyone has done any calculations as to how much meat-eating is sustainable using pastured animals? I was a vegetarian for many years, and was feeling depleted, and am currently eating red meat a modest 2 times a month, and am feeling better. My iron is up.

I wonder about the 'if everyone did' scenario. Obviously, not everyone is going to do any one thing, but I'd love to know if it's sustainable if everyone were to eat meat modestly.

Aven

[newcastlemama]

I never said that my probelms made you a boilogical omnivore. My health issues were point 3 and the omnviore stuff was in point 4. Even if you choose not to eat animal products, your body is still designed for them. You will not take on the biology of an herbivore.

My big issue is really this. Some people feel bad about eating animals/environment/feedlots and become vegetarians. They feel good has vegetarians and then decide that anyone who does not become one is bad because they can just decide not to eat meat. What I am saying is that being a vegetarian is not a real choice for many people, including myself. BTDT.

Many people do not eat their dairy animals. They breed the dairy cow every year for milk and eat the steers. I think that we live in a time where we are disconnected from the cycle of life and death and that killing farm animals was probably not an emotional issue for people in the past like it would be for many today.

So, if parts of old science are proved wrong does that mean it is all wrong? No, there will be many parts that cans till be right. We can still learn from it. Plus with my own personal experince in this body of mine:

low fat veg=tired, depression
higher fat veg=tired
higher fat omni=enegertic, more stable

I think everyone shoud eat in accordance to their morals and convictions. So, if you feel wrong eating meat then don't. I am getting to the point where eating is become less and less academic. One week bread is okay, then next week it is not! Ah! I am at the point that God put all these things on earth for me to choose from for food, and as long as I choose from his provision and have a thankful heart that is where I will find wellness.

[Rainbowbird]

What boggles my mind is that they could have fed him soy FORMULA, since they were obviously not breastfeeding--which is vegan, I would assume, or close to it--and he would have done fine. Every carton of soymilk I've ever purchased has a warning on it "Not to Be Used As an Infant Formula"--how the heck did they miss this information? You'd think if someone wanted to be vegan, they'd naturally do a bit of research, esp. concerning a child's health.

Tragic, senseless, and so very sad.