>>"Are there any studies that support a vegetarian or vegan diet?"
>
>...this question is too unspecific. You cannot say what a veg.diet is,
>anyway.
Remember, the question above was for someone promoting a book on how to deal
with kids who've chosen vegetarianism by an author who's vegetarian herself
and says it's good for you. It's up to HER to say what the vegetarian diet
is. The question is in response to that statement. It's common knowledge
that there are two basic types of vegetarianism; vegan which allows no
animal products whatsoever and vegetarian, which allows eggs and dairy
products (milk, cheese, butter, etc.). If one particular person or another
allows dairy but not eggs, for example, that's THEIR version of
vegetarianism. Which is fine. But 'vegan' and vegetarian' covers the
bases.
>I think it's obvious that nature provides mothers milk to human children.
Be careful! Nature also provides meat to weaned humans.
>Protein is abundant in any original vegetarian food.
But not complete proteins. Meanwhil, wheat is one of the top food
allergens. Lectins cause rheumatoid arthritis. Phytoproteins are not only
not always good; some are bad.
>Ok extracted food items are almost always from plants.
Okay by YOUR definition. List members can supply several articles and
studies on the down-side of some plant proteins (i.e. soy isoflavones).
Also worth noting is the fact that early humans ate no extracted food items.
Have we had time to evolve?
>Take *any* plant you want. Eat your 2400 kcal and you'll have the RDA of
>protein.
US dietary recommendations were created by attorneys, not nutrition experts.
Should we use the RDA protein recommendations as our Holy Bible of
nutrition? For many, 2,400 cal/day are too many.
>>"Which do you find heathier, a vegetarian diet which includes eggs and
>>dairy, or vegan?
>Too unspecific, can't be answered.
You ARE kidding, aren't you? Eggs and dairy yes, or eggs and dairy no; a
very clear question. If it can't be answered, then it's a tough question.
>But all is possible in a healthy way.
Not according to several former vegetarians who've been on this list.
>You won't find any other micronutrient which isn't easily found from
>plants. Or often much easier.
But adequate? Without ill effects? Wheat can have any number of valuable
micronutrients; it's still very bad for me, many others on this list and
untold millions on the global level. Some are allergic. Many produce too
much insulin in response to even moderate grain intake. Autoimmune
disorders followed the introduction of grain to the human diet.
>
>>"Many people choose a vegetarian or vegan diet with animal rights in mind,
>>other people for the health benefits. What ARE the health benefits?"
>
>Better micronutrient supply.
Many grounds for disagreement here. Protein and fat are the only required
macronutrients as they contain all required micronutrients. Plant foods
often supply too many unnecessary tidbits, including carbohydrates (not
needed at all).
>Less danger from improperly produced animal material (scandals are
>always about animals, did you notice?)
Many vegetables have gone from foods to scientific laboratories.
Mass-produced vegetables are stripped of many micronutrients.
>Less acidic food.
Wheat and hard cheeses both produce high acid in the digestive system. Two
examples from the top of my head (obtained during interview of Loren
Cordain, PhD).
>>Any tips for people going the low-carb route....
>Todd once mentioned that it would be possible, utilizing fatty plants (like
>almonds). <snip> And it would be just too restricting for me - missing a
>many goodies.
Question not answered.
>>"Vegetarianism is quite new....
>Vegetarianism isn't real human history, like inuit eating (low carb) isn't.
But humans evolving on a diet containing meat IS human history -- some two
million years worth. The Agricultural Revolution and its negative
after-effects are also human history.
>Do you consider some 50 years of a diet of cows and pigs (nowadays
>form) as long term?
See above.
>>I would say that, for various reasons, it's politically incorrect to
>>question the vegetarian diet.
>I think its political correct to question meat-eating... But why not
>question vegetarian diets?
My point reiterated. Meat's value is questioned all the time, its benefits
suspect. As I said in my original post, I have never seen a mainstream
article questioning vegetarianism. Here in the US, the government has made
available a vegetarian version of the USDA food pyramid, while issuing
warnings against any and all low-carb diets. For example, one one
government program's website (NIDDH), you will find that stomach stapling is
listed as an option for someone as little as 30 pounds overweight. On that
same website, low-carb diets are considered all but deadly. It's literally
politically incorrect to question vegetarianism in the US.
>Sustaining oneself on an agricultural plant base is a art, which culture
>societies have developed.
Here in the US, a government agency once sponsored a piece of art in which
the Christian cross was placed in a fishtank filled with urine. It upset
many. In the wake of 9-11, a public library in Boulder, CO (ten square
miles surrounded by reality) took down a US flag from its entryway (too much
patriotism) while leaving for public view a large piece of art in which a
dozen or so penises were tied to a rope (with a noose at the end, if memory
serves). Many moms and dads did NOT like having their kids see a work that
would qualify as pornographic by many standards, including films (frontally
nude women get an R rating at worse, with male frontal nudity rated X). The
arts as a whole are very good, but many individual pieces of art don't pass
the test. And many have argued that vegetarianism and militant animal
rights activists came to be because of too MUCH culture and free time.
Given human history's lack thereof, it's a valid question, IMHO.
Dori Zook
Denver, CO
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
|
