Stupid question... are vegetarians shorter than meat eaters? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-11-2006, 02:13 PM
 
pampered_mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere short of crazy
Posts: 4,507
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by whateverdidiwants View Post
What Scoobers said. And frankly, I think it's incredibly rude and condescending to come into the Veg forum and spout off about how "great" meat it, :snip:
Not any less rude than going into the TF forum and talking about how wonderful soy products are or how bad cow's milks is for you - which has happened within the last week or so. It's not like there's been an iron curtain/bouncer put up at the entry point to the forum to keep "undesirables" out. I think it's fairly safe to assume that if you post on a "hot button" topic that you will get posts from both sides of the coin. It's unrealistic to assume otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobers
For me, it comes to this, if what the WAPF people and Weston Price himself says about veg*n diets not being healthful is true, then why is it that after almost 30 years of being a vegetarian I'm so healthy and in such great shape? Why after all the soy I ate (and I ate a lot) did I get pregnant one month after going off the pill at 35? Why is my son so tall, strong, smart, healthy, athletic and PLUS he has great teeth to boot?

The answer seems pretty clear. It's because a veg*n diet is a healthy choice. I'm not saying it's the only healthy choice but that's not the main reason we're veg*n.
It's a healthy choice for you. Your statement is true, but only with a qualifier. As someone who is suffering from secondary infertility and done a fair number of the things that you've done - I don't think you can make that general of a statement. Your right - it didn't effect you, but that doesn't mean it will be fine for everyone. And, BTW, health may not be the main reason why you're a veg*n, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE who is a veg*n is one for AR reasons either.

Oh, and if we spent a little less time arguing and a little more time listening I think the people whom you find to be your foes might themselves be former veg*ns...(and likely vice versa)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobers
gross damage that is done to the environment due to factory farming and unsustainable and damaging fishing practices.
And those in the TF forum would be just against these things as you are. I think you'd find you have a lot more in common than you think. It's a lot easier to keep things polarized than it is to admit this. It's a shame, really. Imagine the changes that would happen if we weren't so hellbent on keeping it that way...
pampered_mom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-11-2006, 02:15 PM
 
cathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Central Coast, California
Posts: 5,727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Let's keep this thread on topic. THe discussion is whether vegetarians are shorter not a WAPF vs. vegetarian debate. Save that for another thread not on the vegetarian forum please.

Cathe Olson, author The Vegetarian Mother's Cookbook, Simply Natural Baby Food, and LIck It! Creamy Dreamy Vegan Ice Creams Your Mouth Will Love.  
cathe is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 02:28 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by whateverdidiwants View Post
What Scoobers said. And frankly, I think it's incredibly rude and condescending to come into the Veg forum and spout off about how "great" meat it, when there are a significant number of people who find meat - and all animal products - ethically wrong.
If someone's going to use a dubious book to back up their views, I think it's perfectly acceptable to bring up critiques that pretty much reveal the book's major shortcomings. Especially when the book makes claims like "There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants." Again (broken record warning), someone with his credentials should know better than to lie like this.

Chicharronita is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 02:53 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melissa17s View Post
Chicharronita does your ad hominem attack of Dr. Campbell's character covertly through links and posted articles seems to have little value explaining whether or not vegetarians can grow to the same height as omni's.
Huh?

I kinda get that you're asking what does The China Study have to do with the thread? Well, scoobers brought it up, as a response to someone saying something about meat vs. veggies and height, IIRC. Dunno if you've followed the thread from the beginning, but that's where it had started. Thanks for asking, so that I can take a look; a cursory scroll through the Index doesn't show anything that pops out at me, but anyone else who has the book may remember something.

Chicharronita is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 03:04 PM
 
melissa17s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,139
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
Huh?

I kinda get that you're asking what does The China Study have to do with the thread? Well, scoobers brought it up, as a response to someone saying something about meat vs. veggies and height, IIRC. Dunno if you've followed the thread from the beginning, but that's where it had started. Thanks for asking, so that I can take a look; a cursory scroll through the Index doesn't show anything that pops out at me, but anyone else who has the book may remember something.
No, I am asking how you propose answering the OP's question at hand by criticizing and personally attacking Dr. Campbell. Because I can not find any reasonable connection between your statements and the OP's question.
melissa17s is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 03:04 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pamered_mom View Post
And those in the TF forum would be just against these things as you are. I think you'd find you have a lot more in common than you think. It's a lot easier to keep things polarized than it is to admit this. It's a shame, really. Imagine the changes that would happen if we weren't so hellbent on keeping it that way...
YES!!!! We could probably change factory-farm practices if we could all get together as one force.



I can dream can't I?

Chicharronita is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 03:06 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathe View Post
Let's keep this thread on topic. THe discussion is whether vegetarians are shorter not a WAPF vs. vegetarian debate. Save that for another thread not on the vegetarian forum please.
I agree. It would be nice to have a thread about The China Study, if people were agreeable. I thought I saw that some people were in the process of reading it, or getting it. Could you please let us know what you find on the TF forum when you're done?

Chicharronita is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 03:11 PM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by melissa17s View Post
No, I am asking how you propose answering the OP's question at hand by criticizing and personally attacking Dr. Campbell. Because I can not find any reasonable connection between your statements and the OP's question.
It wasn't very clear to me what you were asking from the sentence you'd originally posted.

But you're absolutely right, the original post from scoobers bringing up The China Study didn't have much to do with the OP's question, but isn't it okay to go off on tangents? Sheesh. I can't believe the amount of sour grapes bringing up the facts of the study has generated.

Chicharronita is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 03:54 PM
 
scoobers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chasing the sparkly rainbow fairys
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
This comment sounds like sour grapes to me, frankly, especially since I pointed out the big nutritional whopper sitting on page 220 in The China Study. If you're going to be critical of the WAP stuff (of which you've never cited a reference that you have a problem with that I know of), you ought to apply the same standards to this book. And saying that folate is ONLY in veggies, wow, how can you defend the guy after that statement?!
Alright, since you insist on clinging ridiculously to one sentence (which I clarified repeatedly BTW) how about this WHOPPER from the "research" of Weston A. Price:
Chapter 15: Characteristics of Primitive and Modernized Dietaries- "The absence of vitamin D and adequate minerals produces rickets in young human beings. Neither rickets nor scurvy can be produced readily in dogs because of the dogs' capacity to synthesize both vitamins C and D. We are not so fortunate. "

Human's can't synthesize Vitamin D?? HUNH???!!!

Here's a link to the NIH Medline dictionary which clearly states
Quote:
Vitamin D is also known as the "sunshine vitamin" because the body manufactures the vitamin after being exposed to sunshine. Ten to 15 minutes of sunshine 3 times weekly is adequate to produce the body's requirement of vitamin D.
So, I found that after "skimming through for 5 minutes with my eyes glazed over". I'm sure there's plenty more to pick apart but, again, it's not worth my time or energy and I don't really care!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
I'm glad it is working for you, and I hope it continues to do so. Heck, believe it or not, I'm highly sympathetic to vegetarians' concern for animal welfare; it's one of the reasons I had cut out almost all meat and dairy in my diet in the first place (in my 20s). But after the disastrous health consequences I suffered, I've come to the decision it's me or them (health-wise).

I'm just very hesitant to recommend this diet, because there are so many people on the nutrition lists who say, basically "I was healthy for years, and then started developing X, Y, and Z."

Just last week someone said that they turned to information on traditional diets after his seemingly healthy, vibrant, youthful-looking 65 year-old mother suddenly developed cancer and died within a year's time. Maybe I'm impressionable, but posts like that really affect me.
Puh-lease. A vegetarian diet causes cancer??? It has been shown over and over again in many many studies that a diets high in fiber and fruits and vegetables DECREASES your risk of many cancers. And how many people have been healthy for years after a non-vegetarian diet and then suddenly developed "X, Y, and Z"? Diet is only one piece of what affects a person's health. Genetics and environment also play a very large role...but then that's pretty obvious.

If it didn't work for you and you've chosen to eat animal products, fine, that's your CHOICE. But don't tell me a veg*n diet is not a healthy choice. I'm frankly really, really tired of hearing that BS.
scoobers is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 03:56 PM
 
scoobers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chasing the sparkly rainbow fairys
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Getting back to the topic...

Here's a link to a study on that very issue.
scoobers is offline  
Old 10-11-2006, 06:41 PM
 
scoobers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chasing the sparkly rainbow fairys
Posts: 542
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
scoobers is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 06:13 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobers View Post
Alright, since you insist on clinging ridiculously to one sentence (which I clarified repeatedly BTW)
No, you did not clarify; if anything, you obfuscated.

I am not clinging to that one sentence where Dr. C says categorically, FOLATES ONLY OCCUR IN PLANT FOODS, i.e., NOT in ANIMAL FOODS (which is a lie).

I also cling to and find unacceptable the following claims he makes: That rat studies show that ALL protein causes cancer, when it is the highly-processed, isolated milk protein CASEIN, not pork chops, steaks, or chicken wings in their diet that causes it;

The misstatement that "There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants." What? Vegetables have VERY LITTLE or NONE of the following nutrients as compared to meat:

B-vitamins
Creatine
Taurine
Carnitine
Carnosine
Iron
Zinc
Long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobers View Post
how about this WHOPPER from the "research" of Weston A. Price:
Chapter 15: Characteristics of Primitive and Modernized Dietaries- "The absence of vitamin D and adequate minerals produces rickets in young human beings. Neither rickets nor scurvy can be produced readily in dogs because of the dogs' capacity to synthesize both vitamins C and D. We are not so fortunate. "

Human's can't synthesize Vitamin D?? HUNH???!!!
I'm so glad you actually went and read from the book! How'd you get to chapter 15 so fast?

But anyway, read the sentences again, in the context of the whole paragraph. Here it is for other people who don't want to go find it:

"Unlike some experimental animals human beings have not the ability to create some special chemical substances (not elements) such as vitamins within their bodies. Several animals have this capacity. For example, scurvy, which is due to a lack of vitamin C, cannot be produced readily in rats because rats can manufacture vitamin C. Similarly, rickets cannot be produced easily in guinea pigs, because they can synthesize vitamin D. The absence of vitamin D and adequate minerals produces rickets in young human beings. Neither rickets nor scurvy can be produced readily in dogs because of the dogs' capacity to synthesize both vitamins C and D. We are not so fortunate. Similarly, the absence of vitamin B (B1) produces in birds and man severe nervous system reactions, such as beri-beri. These symptoms are often less pronounced, or quite different, in other animals."

This means certain animals have the ability to make some vitamins WITHIN THEIR BODIES, they don't need to consume them in their diets. We humans, on the other hand, unfortunately must get vitamin D from diet or the sun, because we don't have the ability to make it within our bodies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobers View Post
So, I found that after "skimming through for 5 minutes with my eyes glazed over". I'm sure there's plenty more to pick apart but, again, it's not worth my time or energy and I don't really care!
Yes, it certainly shows that you don't really care, because you get too caught up in attacking the messenger(s), rather than reading things carefully to make your points. Don't you know that it will put people off, rather than make them want to rally to your side? As a vegan, don't you want meat-eaters to be sympathetic to your views? In your posts, I see more spite and sour grapes than well thought-out arguments made in favor of your views. I know that you can do better than that! Please, make a better effort for the sake of the animals!

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobers View Post
A vegetarian diet causes cancer??? It has been shown over and over again in many many studies that a diets high in fiber and fruits and vegetables DECREASES your risk of many cancers.
I know! But it doesn't give the complete picture to the causes of good health.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobers View Post
And how many people have been healthy for years after a non-vegetarian diet and then suddenly developed "X, Y, and Z"? Diet is only one piece of what affects a person's health. Genetics and environment also play a very large role...but then that's pretty obvious.
Come on, if your mother died suddenly like that, wouldn't you wonder why? Especially if she was the "model" vegetarian? AFAIK, it wasn't genetics, and even bad genetics can be helped with a good diet (isn't that what you guys say to people converting to veganism?)

The problem is, most of the experts right now are telling us to cut cholesterol and fat because they're supposedly bad; eat more soy; veggies are the best source of folates (see Google.com); eat more complex carbohydrates, blah blah blah.

I did everything the wonderful experts said to do, and I'm pretty pissed that I ended up with bad rather than good health. It's because of these pro-vegetarian, biased views that I had to go on a low-carb diet to cure me of the maladies that this horrible diet caused (in case anyone is wondering, the former "good" diet gave me PMS, severe menstrual cramps, Endometriosis, an ovarian cyst and uterine fibroid which I needed to have surgically removed, hypoglycemia, severe sugar cravings, severe, suicidal depression, weight gain and high blood pressure).

Today I have none of those problems after only nine months on the diet; what's more, I have virtually no sugar or chocolate cravings. How many women do you know have no PMS, sugar, or chocolate cravings? They are simply gone, and all I do now for a sweet treat is have a few drinks made with stevia as the only sweetener (well, and licorice, but I don't think that counts).

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoobers View Post
If it didn't work for you and you've chosen to eat animal products, fine, that's your CHOICE. But don't tell me a veg*n diet is not a healthy choice. I'm frankly really, really tired of hearing that BS.
Well, if you're going to keep on making the poor arguments that you have in your posts, you're going to be even more tired of hearing views against your own, I'm afraid. But you can change all that in your favor, I'm confident in that.

Chicharronita is offline  
Old 10-12-2006, 06:49 AM
 
mamaverdi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Vegetables have VERY LITTLE or NONE of the following nutrients as compared to meat:

B-vitamins
Creatine
Taurine
Carnitine
Carnosine
Iron
Zinc
Long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids"

This is not an accurate statement. Even if true. The ability of the body to absorb and process nutrients does not necessarily correlate to the AMOUNT of the nutrient in the food. It correlates to how the body interacts with the food.

For instance, carnitine. Carnitine is present in greater amounts in artificial baby milk than is measured in human milk. But human milk carnitine is much more bioavailable to humans than other sources of carntine.

Also, avocados have a very high levels of carnitine that are actually highly bioavailable.

Long chain fatty acids: Palm oil and castor oil are both LCFAs. There are others as well that are not meat.

Very long chain fatty acids are present in fish and algae. Algae is not a meat.

There is a big difference b/w the quantity of nutrient available and how much the body can absorb.

I maintain that every person's body is different. Some people absorb nutrients better from some sources than others.
mamaverdi is offline  
Old 10-13-2006, 08:51 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi View Post
"Vegetables have VERY LITTLE or NONE of the following nutrients as compared to meat:

B-vitamins
Creatine
Taurine
Carnitine
Carnosine
Iron
Zinc
Long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids"

This is not an accurate statement. Even if true. The ability of the body to absorb and process nutrients does not necessarily correlate to the AMOUNT of the nutrient in the food. It correlates to how the body interacts with the food.
Your points are valid, but that's not what Dr. C is talking about. Look at the sentence he wrote; he says, in bold, "There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants."

On the same page (230), he shows a chart with 11 nutrients, but only folate and iron are on them that I discussed above (and he cleverly compares the nutritional value of plant-based foods with some of the highest amounts of nutrition in vitamins and minerals like spinach, with just these animal foods: beef, pork, chicken and whole milk. So, he shows that these plant-based foods have 1168 mcg of folate, but generic "meat" ony has 19. BUT 3 oz. of beef liver contain 185 mcg, versus 1/2 cup of cooked spinach, which has only 100 mcg. In addition, I wonder where he got that 1168 figure from, the NIH site shows that of all the vegetables, spinach has the highest amount of folate, so you'd have to eat a LOT of spinach to get that much folic acid!).

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/folate.asp

In addition, he only mentions zinc in passing in a discussion about supplements, and iron not in the context of meat versus veg. sources, but fiber binding iron in the gut. He doesn't touch on the other nutrients at all in his book, and I think with good reason, because it would further weaken his argument about the superiority of a plant-based diet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi View Post
For instance, carnitine. Carnitine is present in greater amounts in artificial baby milk than is measured in human milk. But human milk carnitine is much more bioavailable to humans than other sources of carntine.
Yes, that's fine for babies, but what about adults? If you don't eat meat, do you just take a supplement? Or just get REALLY friendly with another nursing mom? LOL.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi View Post
Also, avocados have a very high levels of carnitine that are actually highly bioavailable.
That's true; however, I wonder how much avocado you'd have to eat every day to get the daily recommended 250 to 500 mg amount? What about vegans in the midwest—can you easily get avocados out there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi View Post
Long chain fatty acids: Palm oil and castor oil are both LCFAs. There are others as well that are not meat.
I wasn't just talking about generic LCFAs, but the Omega-3s DHA and EPA, which are only in animal foods (although now there's some supplement available from algae that costs $68 per bottle when you count S & H, and 2 capsules contain only 75mg EPA & 270mg DHA).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi View Post
There is a big difference b/w the quantity of nutrient available and how much the body can absorb.

I maintain that every person's body is different. Some people absorb nutrients better from some sources than others.
These are good points, but again, that's not what Dr. C focuses on after he makes the bold unfounded statement. He's so intent on maligning animal foods in this part of the book, and it appears that he's counting on the reader not knowing much about nutrition.

This section ends with the recommendation to supplement with B12 and vitamin D during winter months, BTW.

I'm so glad you posted, because it made me go through the book and think about it even more.

I've made a new thread on the Traditional Foods sub-forum for those who are interested in debating the book further, so feel free to post any thoughts you have over there.

Chicharronita is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off