OK, I am a Christian member of this group, although not nearly as fervent as I should be, but still. And the Bible that I READ (sorry, just a note back to something someone else said...yes, some of us DO READ IT), advocates the eating of flesh, dunno where these vegans get otherwise, truly. It is NOT a sin to eat flesh, only in the Old Testament, and that was just for the Jews. I am not trying to be "religious" here, but I wish people would get their stories straight. The Bible that I read happens to go right along with Paleo, pretty much, don't understand why ya'all say it doesn't. It does say stuff about bread and manna and stuff, yep, but who knows what was all in it at that time. Surely not "partially hydrogenated canola oil", lol. Just my small opinion at this time of night.....
> consuming a vegan diet with about 10 percent of calories from fat
> The study volunteers were also given additional soy, three grams
> of fish oil, 100 units of vitamin E, 200 milligrams of selenium and 2
> grams of vitamin C daily.
LOL! Since when is fish oil "vegan"? How does Ornish get away with
idiotic
claims like that? And if all fat is so bad, as he sometimes seems to suggest
and allows the media to portray him as claiming, why does he prescribe
omega-3 fats (fish oil) at all? If the vegan diet is so great, why does it
need several vitamin and fat supplements, including megadoses of vitamin C?
I wonder why no one seems to have skewered Ornish for advocating megadoses
of vitamin C the way Linus Pauling was? 2,000 mg is twice the level of
vitamin C that Pauling initially advocated when he started promoting it and
got lambasted for it.
Lynnette is right--these supplements and the exercise and the stress
reduction confound the study so that we don't know which of the many
variables is contributing to the results. I doubt that Cordain, Eaton,
Lindeberg, Atkins or any of the pro-meat diet advocates could get away with
including so many variables in a study and then claiming that it proved that
their proposed diet was healthful. Have any scientists questioned the
validity of Ornish's unscientific method yet?
On the bright side, at least Ornish is adding to the evidence that
environmental factors change gene expression (epigenetics). Maybe people
will eventually realize that fish oil is not vegan and decide to test a diet
that includes whole fish instead of just their oil, and maybe the vegans and
PETA people will get on Ornish's case for killing fish. :-)
Given that Ornish came to the conclusion that a near-vegan diet was best due
to his conversion to a guru-inspired Hinduism instead of any scientific
evidence, it's no surprise that his studies and claims are classic examples
of bad science. Because his dietary views are religious-based instead of
science-based, he advocates making up for the lack of protein, vitamin B12,
iron and essential fatty acids in his diet by taking soy, B12 and iron
supplements and fish oil, to minimize the sinful consumption of animal
foods. By advocating fish oil and the other supplements, he acknowledges
that no vegan or vegetarian diet provides complete nutrition and some
animals must be killed to achieve complete nutrition (although he could have
tried one of the algae-based omega 3 supplements, which have not been
tested, to my knowledge).
|
