# "Death by Veganism" NYT opinion piece



## rayo de sol (Sep 28, 2006)

Here's an interesting (but obviously controversial) op-ed piece from the New York Times:

Quote:

*Death by Veganism*
By NINA PLANCK
Published: May 21, 2007

I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.

Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html


----------



## AllieFaye (Mar 7, 2007)

I think that's just nonsense. Humans can thrive on a wide variety of foods. I did think the news agencies took an interesting point of view. Why play up that they were vegans? The headlines could have just as easily trumpeted that they were UC'ers, or bf'ers (if not exclusively.) It seems that the vegan issue is the one that makes it the most controversial, and incites these types of letters in response. Why not just say "irresponsible parents allow child to starve" instead of harping on their lifestyle choices? Doesn't it make it seem like only those "wacky vegans" would starve their child? Sadly, there are people of all persuasions who starve their babies; it's not _because_ they are vegan.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Again with the "fish oil is necessary for babies" thing. She said that in the bit she sent out on her email list talking about this tragic case (which was a slightly more emotional version of the above). I take cod liver oil and give it to my kids, but I'm somewhat annoyed by her insistence that babies _need fish oil_. "...babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil" just sounds silly to me. As if fish oil in and of itself is an essential nutrient, babies must have it and will necessarily be unhealthy without it. There are other ways to get omega-3s and the other good stuff in fish oil, especially in a pasture-based agricultural system.


----------



## eco_mama (Feb 10, 2006)

hogwash.

the fact that, that poor babe was starved was NOT because his parents were "vegans" it was because they obviously were *extremely uneducated.* (because honestly, i consider it common sense that a baby cannot live on apple juice and SOY milk--aparently it's not)

thousands of people for years around the world are vegans and have healthy vegan children as well because they are *educated* and know what to eat in order to get the right nutrition for their bodies. i can't stand that mentality that "you need to consume animal products or by-products in order to be healthy"







: it's ridiculous.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

ITA with the other PPs.

This line in particular bothers me,

Quote:

This particular calamity - at least the third such conviction of vegan parents in four years - may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.
Hmmm... and how many omni babies have died from nutritional issues? Of course that's not included because it's not controversal.


----------



## mirlee (Jul 30, 2002)

Wow, she is such an idiot! That poor child was the victim of parents who were grossly undereducated and misinformed. How dare she blame that on a vegan diet!


----------



## vermontgirl (Aug 15, 2006)

Hmm who is this woman? She sure is ignorant. I THRIVE on a vegan diet and I know Harvest will as well. If he doesnt, well his health will have to come before our vegan lifestyle. I am bothered by the fact that this opinion piece was even published. Now more ignorant people will join this woman and believe this misinformation.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

ack! this was brought up before. ignore her. she's just trying to cash in on tragedy to sell her agenda. tactless. uke


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

OK, since this ISN'T on the Veg*n board, I'm going to weigh in with my completely unpopular opinion. Bear in mind that what I post here is based entirely on anecdotal evidence rather than published studies (I've looked, but haven't found enough of them that didn't have an obviously pro-dairy-industry slant).

I've known a LOT of vegan children. I was raised by hippies, first of all, and then I ran a veg*n restaurant that had a really "family" clientele including lots of vegans. I've worked on organic farms alongside vegan families. I've been doing this for a long time. I've also been a private vegan chef, and studied a fair amount of nutrition. FWIW, I was ranting about processed soy several years ago and everyone told me I was CRAZY, soy was BY DEFINITION nutritious and healthy. I'm so glad there's a more reasoned view on that now.

Some more caveats here: I think veganism is the ethically ideal way to eat. I was raised Buddhist. I try to live as close to that ideal as I can. I do NOT scoff at veganism. I love and applaud people who raise their children with the ethical structure that veganism implies.

That said.

In my experience, I think it is difficult to the point of being nearly impossible to raise children with a nutritionally adequate vegan diet. (Here's where the flamethrowers start to get charged up, I'm sure.) Yes, I know some people can make a full-time job of it with supplements and perfect nutritional balance and can achieve near-adequacy. However, this is assuming a Herculean level of planning and a basically-healthy-in-all-other-ways child. Most parents do not have either.

When I ran the restaurant, it was an ongoing topic of conversation among the (almost entirely vegetarian) staff, several of whom decided they would not raise their children vegan given what they'd seen. It was scary. You could pick the vegan children out at a glance. They were shorter. They were spindly. They clutched asthma inhalers or had tremors. They were, for want of a better word, sickly. I stopped guessing ages, because I would be so wildly off with vegan kids "He's so cute, is he two?" "Actually, he's five."

I have never--not once--met a vegan child who did not have health problems, or who was not VISIBLY more unhealthy than his/her peers.

I'm assuming they exist, because parents on internet message boards are always telling me that their child is completely healthy, and is vegan. And I will not call such parents liars. But I have met many, many more vegan and vegetarian children than the average person, and based on my observations I do not consider strict veganism to be an appropriate diet for a child.

Sometimes a do see a normal-looking kid, and the parents will claim to be vegan. And this will make me very happy, as I _want_ veganism to be healthy for children! Inevitably, it comes out that the family is vegan but the child was given raw milk until the age of eight, or the child is given fresh fish caught by the family in a stream, or the mother believes children should be able to eat eggs. SOME kind of animal protein is sneaking its way in there.

I really wish this weren't what I had observed. And hey--if you're in NYC and want to show me otherwise, please do! I'd love to see if I could transition my children to veganism. But I can't--won't--do so until I see something different than what I've seen so far.

So yes, I think this article is dealing with reality. If debate on this topic is not allowed, then this thread should be moved to the veg*n board. As I said, I would never post this there--I would consider it rude to invade veg*n space with debate. However, I do think this needed to be said.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Individuation, I agree with your observations, and I don't choose veganism for my kids for health reasons based on my own observations and intuition (I was veg*n for a time, as well). I don't take issue with frankly discussing the drawbacks and benefits of any particular dietary philosophy, whether it's in an op ed piece or not. What annoys me about this particular piece is the "babies are built from fish oil" thing. I know this author is one of those promoting the findings of Dr. Price, with which I also agree, but there were plenty of healthy populations who didn't take fish oil. For instance, how about the Swiss he studied, who ate almost entirely sourdough rye bread and raw dairy, with small amounts of meat, fresh veggies in summer and preserved veggies in winter? I don't think he found they had sickly, stupid children.

I wish there was more tact and less absolutism being spread around by nutrition authors on all sides of the fence.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
Individuation, I agree with your observations, and I don't choose veganism for my kids for health reasons based on my own observations and intuition (I was veg*n for a time, as well). I don't take issue with frankly discussing the drawbacks and benefits of any particular dietary philosophy, whether it's in an op ed piece or not. What annoys me about this particular piece is the "babies are built from fish oil" thing. I know this author is one of those promoting the findings of Dr. Price, with which I also agree, but there were plenty of healthy populations who didn't take fish oil. For instance, how about the Swiss he studied, who ate almost entirely sourdough rye bread and raw dairy, with small amounts of meat, fresh veggies in summer and preserved veggies in winter? I don't think he found they had sickly, stupid children.

I wish there was more tact and less absolutism being spread around by nutrition authors on all sides of the fence.

Fair enough with the fish oil thing... she is kind of coming off like a shill for the makers of DHA capsules, you're right.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
Again with the "fish oil is necessary for babies" thing. She said that in the bit she sent out on her email list talking about this tragic case (which was a slightly more emotional version of the above). I take cod liver oil and give it to my kids, but I'm somewhat annoyed by her insistence that babies _need fish oil_. "...babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil" just sounds silly to me. As if fish oil in and of itself is an essential nutrient, babies must have it and will necessarily be unhealthy without it. There are other ways to get omega-3s and the other good stuff in fish oil, especially in a pasture-based agricultural system.

Yeah I don't eat fish because I don't like the smell at all, especially when pregnant since we're also talking about diet of the mother during pregnancy - she made me feel like I was stunting their brains just because it's the one healthy thing that we really don't eat.


----------



## newmom80 (Jun 15, 2006)

I think this article is ridiculously slanted. I really liked Nina Planck before she wrote this, but reading this feels like propaganda.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
Fair enough with the fish oil thing... she is kind of coming off like a shill for the makers of DHA capsules, you're right.

I guess that's part of my irritation, statements like that seem like a hard sell for fish oil. I've grown weary of the "your child must have cod liver oil/fish oil or else they won't ever be optimally healthy or grow normally!" It's just not true, IMO. Sure, those products are a good superfood source of some important nutrients, but are not the only source.

I've been getting more concerned about pollutants in fish oils (heavy metals, flame retardants, organochlorines, etc.) which have been found in fish even from the supposedly pristine Arctic waters and would be concentrated in the oils, so I've been trying to increase my family's intake of those nutrients from other, safer, more ecological whole food sources and thinking about phasing out the fish oil supplements. I haven't found that there's any unbiased oversight or testing for the purity of fish oil products.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

the sad thing is that veganism is a fad. look at all the celebrities who are vegan selling their agenda to kids and adults alike. 'be animal cruelty free just like me!' big grins. most vegans (all vegans i have ever met IRL) are far from eating an adequate diet. they went in eating Big Macs every day and once they decided to be kind to the animals the went on to become junk food vegans. potato chips and coke are vegan. so when someone says they are vegan and raising vegan children i often wonder what type of vegan they really are. it's difficult being vegan in this world. when you're vegan you need to eat more and more often of whole foods. we should really be doing this anyway but for vegans especially. but we are conditioned to eat this and that at this time and this time only and don't eat more greens then this etc etc.
great on PETA for trying to help the animals but the sad truth is they are doing more harm then good. they are pushing their own propaganda making junk food, half butted vegans who turn out to be wildly unhealthy which, in turn, makes people untrusting of a vegan diet.









just FYI- i was vegan and a very happy vegan. i do prefer being "flexitarian" eating meat twice a year. i also believe in Yogurt so i'm no longer technically veg*n and definitely not vegan. but the diet can be a good one if done right. it does take work to change our preconceptions though.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

One of the reasons I am raising organic free-range hens is so that my children can have good, useable animal proteins without having to eat much meat or depend on processed food.

I was in the vegan/veg/macro community for years and years and the children of parents who 'let the kids have dairy--eggs, a little yogurt-- he likes it so much, and our friend who has the cutest hens gave us the eggs, and my MIL got this really wonderful raw cheese', were absolutely taller and more other things than those who kids who got no dairy or animal anything, ever. (I think 100% breastfed infants of careful, dedicated mothers do fine-- good breastmilk depend on the stores of the mothers. I am more talking about weaned children). Plus, food as religion has been tricky for me.

I would never comment on this if there were posted in the vegan forum. I repsect veganism.

We eat a mostly vegetarian diet, although are not vegetarians right now. My 13 yr old ds is talking about going back to being vegetarian, and I asked him if he was thinking about being vegan. He said no, and I breathed a sigh of relief. I would absolutely support him, having gone that route myself, but as a mother, I was glad I didnt have to think about making sure he got all that he needed as a growing male vegan.

I thought it was very hard, I felt hungry a lot, had heachaces etc. It was my own fault. I didn't always do/eat/pre[are as I should have. And believe me, I do not think we need as much protein as we think we do! Still, I don't want him to load up a lunch box full processed soy and such, or sugar things teens are tempted to fill up one when they are starving after an active day etc-- when he could have an incredibly nutritious egg from our beloved hens-- an easy, cheap source of some good stuff--that did not depend on trucking, tons of water to process, plastic to package, fossil fuels etc.

For me, there is a lot to consider.


----------



## pixiesmommy (Apr 19, 2007)

I obviously read this differently. I'm not vegan, vegetarian, etc. and it doesn't affect me one way or another if someone is- totally that person's choice, IMO.

However, reading this I understood that she was saying that it's the DHA that's important and that can be provided through breastmilk, but it can be deficient even in the BM of vegan women. Having said that, I wonder if someone who eats other animal proteins but NOT fish would also have deficient DHA in BM?? I, for example, rarely eat fish whether I am pregnant, BF, or not.

I did not see that she was promoting to give a child fish oil, just touting that DHA is supposed to help with growth.... but isn't that a recent find as well? I mean, they only recently started adding it to formula, which would mean that decades of FF babies may NOT have received the benefits of DHA.

Manda


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
the sad thing is that veganism is a fad. look at all the celebrities who are vegan selling their agenda to kids and adults alike. 'be animal cruelty free just like me!' big grins. most vegans (all vegans i have ever met IRL) are far from eating an adequate diet. they went in eating Big Macs every day and once they decided to be kind to the animals the went on to become junk food vegans. potato chips and coke are vegan. so when someone says they are vegan and raising vegan children i often wonder what type of vegan they really are. it's difficult being vegan in this world. when you're vegan you need to eat more and more often of whole foods. we should really be doing this anyway but for vegans especially. but we are conditioned to eat this and that at this time and this time only and don't eat more greens then this etc etc.
great on PETA for trying to help the animals but the sad truth is they are doing more harm then good. they are pushing their own propaganda making junk food, half butted vegans who turn out to be wildly unhealthy which, in turn, makes people untrusting of a vegan diet.









just FYI- i was vegan and a very happy vegan. i do prefer being "flexitarian" eating meat twice a year. i also believe in Yogurt so i'm no longer technically veg*n and definitely not vegan. but the diet can be a good one if done right. it does take work to change our preconceptions though.


As you said, people can be very healthy on vegan diets. I don't think most people choosing vegan diets do so because some celeb is vegan.

I think veganism for adults is an entirely different animal than veganism for infants and young children.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Even as a non-veg*n, this article pisses me off. What those people were feeding that baby was not an appropriate vegan diet for a baby. If an omni family fed an infant something so absurdly inappropriate, the papers wouldn't be trumpeting it as the death of an omni baby. This baby didn't die of DHA deficiency, this baby died of starvation.

Just for posterity, though, I do think that DHA is critical to brain growth. And I believe fish oil is a very easily available source of DHA. No, it's not the only source in existence. Many societies got it from other animal sources. But it's a highly concentrated source, available at a time when most of our most readily available traditional sources (meat, milk, eggs) are highly compromised by vastly inappropriate animal husbandry techniques; and when most of the population's bodies are severely out of balance because of a lifetime of eating inappropriately. It's a very valuable foodstuff. But, no, ya'll are right - it's not the only source of DHA in existence.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
As you said, people can be very healthy on vegan diets. I don't think most people choosing vegan diets do so because some celeb is vegan.

i'm only saying in my IRL experience with vegans i have known short of DH and i it was because Pam Anderson or Tobey McGuire (sp?) or whomever led them to PETA and the truth about animal cruelty. the thing is i don't care how someone gets to where ever they choose to be but i do care when the people are putting themselves in danger because they are less concerned about their health than they are not eating animal products. they might be doing it for a good cause but that is no excuse for screwing yourself up. and don't even get me started about when children are in the mix of this.







:

Quote:

I think veganism for adults is an entirely different animal than veganism for infants and young children.
completely agree.


----------



## AmyLaz (Aug 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
the sad thing is that veganism is a fad. look at all the celebrities who are vegan selling their agenda to kids and adults alike. 'be animal cruelty free just like me!' big grins. most vegans (all vegans i have ever met IRL) are far from eating an adequate diet. they went in eating Big Macs every day and once they decided to be kind to the animals the went on to become junk food vegans. potato chips and coke are vegan. so when someone says they are vegan and raising vegan children i often wonder what type of vegan they really are. it's difficult being vegan in this world. when you're vegan you need to eat more and more often of whole foods. we should really be doing this anyway but for vegans especially. but we are conditioned to eat this and that at this time and this time only and don't eat more greens then this etc etc.
great on PETA for trying to help the animals but the sad truth is they are doing more harm then good. they are pushing their own propaganda making junk food, half butted vegans who turn out to be wildly unhealthy which, in turn, makes people untrusting of a vegan diet.









just FYI- i was vegan and a very happy vegan. i do prefer being "flexitarian" eating meat twice a year. i also believe in Yogurt so i'm no longer technically veg*n and definitely not vegan. but the diet can be a good one if done right. it does take work to change our preconceptions though.

Wow, I have never heard a more ridiculous and uneducated argument against veganism. Your words are especially troubling in light of the fact that you claim to have once been a vegan yourself. Veganism is far from a fad - it has been around for quite a while. I have not found veganism to be difficult - I can eat at any restaurant, even steakhouses, and I shop in regular grocery stores. Your comment that most vegans are junk food vegans is particulary laughable. The following is a post from an online message board that sums up the issue nicely:

"Nina Planck should be ashamed that she used the neglect and eventual murder of a child to further her book sales. "I was once a vegan", she writes - as if she was led from the darkness.

Nina Plank is not a nutritionist, a doctor, or a dietician. Her expertise is in farmers' markets, local food, and writing. Once a congressional staffer and speechwriter, Nina knows the business of spin.

Could it be, that as the owner of "London Farmers' Markets", a $6 million annual business that makes much of it's money from the sales of whole milk, eggs, and meat, that Nina is protecting an income from a growing movement that focuses on plant-based foods?

One thing that Nina and many vegans do agree on is that Farmers' Markets and organic, local foods are incredibly important to support (at least as far as the fruits, veggies, and plants go). Factory farms and agribusiness are responsible for the worst in animal cruelty and Franken-foods.

The Shakur tragedy has nothing to do with veganism, per se. This is a case of horrible neglect. Any parent knows that soymilk and apple juice are not suitable as replacements for infant formula or mother's milk. And if they don't, every box of soymilk says "this is not infant formula" on it in some form.

Nina's unprofessional assessment that "You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants" Is simply incorrect. As a filmmaker and documentarian who has worked on a documentary about vegan parenting, I have seen the healthy, robust vegan children first-hand.

Many doctors, dieticians and nutritionists disagree with Nina, including the American Dietetic Association. According to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), "well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence."

The key phrase is "well-planned" and every parent should have a "well-planned" diet for their child, as should adolescents and adults.

Plenty of cases of severe child abuse and nutritional neglect occur in non-vegan households, and likewise there are plenty of healthy, vegan children. In this case, the media and authorities are just looking for something to lay the blame on, and since Veganism is not mainstream, and has many health-myths attached to it, it is an easy target.

Nina's complete misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Veganism is evident in her subscription to typical and antiquated myths about protein, calcium, vitamins A, D and B12, claiming that vegans are basically lucky to be surviving. There is a reason that nutritionists "used to speak of proteins as "first class" (from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and "second class" (from plants)" that has nothing to do with hurting vegetarians' feelings. It is simply incorrect and outdated.

Americans are protein obsessed, according to Dr. Joel Fuhrman, a board-certified family physician specializing in disease reversal and prevention. In his book "Disease Proof your Child", he says the mainstream media and advertisers who profit from the meat and dairy industries perpetuate the fallacy about our need for excessive amounts of protein.

According to Dr. Fuhrman, "Humans, like other primates, are designed to consume a diet predominating in natural plant foods with their symphony of essential phytochemicals. Fresh fruits, vegetables, beans, raw nuts and seeds should form the foundation of normal nutrition." He explains that there is protein in almost everything edible. Look at the horse, the giraffe, the hippo, the Grey-Back Gorilla with nine-inch fangs - all vegetarians. How do they get so huge and strong? Certainly not by eating a steak or fish-filet!

According to Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D., "It is very easy for a vegan diet to meet the recommendations for protein, as long as calorie intake is adequate. Strict protein combining is not necessary; it is more important to eat a varied diet throughout the day."
(http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm)

The myth that fish are the only source of 'complete' amino acids is also totally false, according to Dr. Mangels.

Just because you avoid animal products, however, does not automatically mean you're healthy. If you include seaweed, nutritional yeast (tastes like cheese!), fortified soymilk, green leafy veggies (kale, collards, spinach) and other fresh fruits and veggies as well as healthy fats like avocado, coconut oil, nuts and seeds in your diet, you have nothing to worry about.

I addition to being healthy, veganism can be the greenest lifestyle for those concerned with their ecological or carbon footprint. In a groundbreaking 2006 report, the United Nations (U.N.) said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. Senior U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization official Henning Steinfeld reported that the meat industry is "one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems."

Veganism can be one of the healthiest diets. Vegetarian and vegan athletes are everywhere. From Hank Aaron (pro baseball player), to Steve Berra (pro skateboarder), to Andreas Cahling (champion bodybuilder), to Debbie Lawrence (5k record holder), to Martina Navratilova (champion tennis player), to Robert Parnish (pro basketball player), these athletes show that the stereotype of vegetarians and vegans being weak and frail is total nonsense."


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:

Wow, I have never heard a more ridiculous and uneducated argument against veganism.
Amy- i got past your first sentence and had to stop and ask if you actually read what i posted. i was defedning veganism. i wholeheartdly believe veaginsm can be healthy when done right. that is the key like anything else *when done right*. please go back and read my post! i am far from saying veganism is a fad for everyone and therefore should be dismissed. what i am saying is that it is becoming popular and people aren't really looking at it but instead diving into a vegan diet without any real education and harming themselves. this is from real life observations i have had of friends and their friends who are vegans for the fad. needless to say most of them are no longer vegan.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

and i was also stating that the vegans i have come across IRL short of DH and i, oh yes and i forgot to add my MW, are junk food vegans. not saying all vegans everywhere are. they're not looking at health but rather if it has animal products in it. so they go out and grab a coke and that's what they have for breakfast. no lie. they are out there. i have heard stuff like this IRL and in boards. at least on the boards they got flamed until there was nothing left.


----------



## AmyLaz (Aug 30, 2006)

Yes, I read your post in its entirety. I understood that you think that veganism, "when done right," is a healthy diet. But this comment in particular was troubling:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
great on PETA for trying to help the animals but the sad truth is they are doing more harm then good. they are pushing their own propaganda making junk food, half butted vegans who turn out to be wildly unhealthy which, in turn, makes people untrusting of a vegan diet.









You seem to be using your personal experiences with vegans you know and your personal opinions of PETA to color all vegans. This is irresponsible. I would venture to say that _most_ vegans are not, as you put it, "half-butted." Rather, they are thoughtful people who are doing what they (and countless nutritionist and doctors) believe is best for their health, as well as the health of animals and the planet.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

There's a good response to this Op-Ed by John McDougall, MD:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007other/nytimes.html


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AmyLaz* 
Yes, I read your post in its entirety. I understood that you think that veganism, "when done right," is a healthy diet. But this comment in particular was troubling:

You seem to be using your personal experiences with vegans you know and your personal opinions of PETA to color all vegans. This is irresponsible. I would venture to say that _most_ vegans are not, as you put it, "half-butted." Rather, they are thoughtful people who are doing what they (and countless nutritionist and doctors) believe is best for their health, as well as the health of animals and the planet.

yes, which i have stated several times that this is all my personal IRL observances. not once have i said or even implied that *all* vegans are like this. as a matter of fact i have said that vegans who are like this are giving the majority of vegans a bad name. what i am trying to convey is the "fad" vegans who are not taking care of themselves are making veganism as a whole look irresponsible and coloring it for non vegans and vegans alike. 'oh i knew a vegan once. all she could eat was rice and beans and she got really unhealthy so she had to eat meat to regain her health' how often have i heard something like that?







: the truth is some are focusing far too much on AR and leaving themselves in the dirt. you can have both. i just wish that organizations like PETA, who put themselves out there far more than any other, would be a bit more... wise in their marketing and stress the importance of health. they haven't. this is very upsetting to me. it has consequences for the entire vegan community- those with the common sense and those without. someone could know 10 healthy vegans but as soon as that one who had no idea what proper nutrition comes along and says her veganism made her ill it discredits veganism to that someone with 10 other healthy happy vegan friends. veganism is already on thin ice because it's so 'off' to our meat and potato society.

you're taking what i'm saying as blanketed for all vegans which is far from what i'm trying to convey. what i am saying is there are "fad" vegans and vegans and "fad" vegans, although in the minority, are the news makers because they embody what society wants to believe about veganism. they are doing far more harm then good for veganism as a whole.


----------



## ChattyCat (Sep 7, 2004)

Really, this article is ridiculous. The baby died of starvation not veganism.

And, for those of you who think that a vegan diet is unhealthy for children, I think that most vegan babies aren't actually. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that most vegans would breastfeed their babies/toddlers/preschoolers/kindergartners/etc. This assures that the 'vegan' child is getting many of these animal proteins that the author is so concerned about.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momma2emerson* 
Really, this article is ridiculous. The baby died of starvation not veganism.

And, for those of you who think that a vegan diet is unhealthy for children, I think that most vegan babies aren't actually. I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that most vegans would breastfeed their babies/toddlers/preschoolers/kindergartners/etc. This assures that the 'vegan' child is getting many of these animal proteins that the author is so concerned about.

Yeah, uh, cows milk is produced by vegan moms







! I think that if a mom, for whatever reason, stops breastfeeding before the age of 2 or 3, she needs to be sure that the child is getting adequate amounts of saturated fat- milk, butter and yogurt being the easiest source, but not the only one. Babies who are not breastfed need an adequate substitute.

FWIW, I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian, I eat exclusively vegan 2-3 days a week, and limit my animal products to one meal a day on the days I do eat them (Though not usually a single serving in the meal), almost always organic/free range. My daughter does eat eggs, cheese, yogurt and milk almost every day.

I think that both Weston A. Price and PETA are seriously deluded, though it amuses me to see them using the same arguments against factory-monoculture-agribusiness to support opposite positions. Sustainable agriculture that will feed dense populations requires some animal waste as fertilizer, chickens and geese are great pest control, and bees are very efficient pollinators, but the planet can't support the kind of daily consumtion of animal products that it could when we had smaller numbers.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

I think it is important to examine what we are feeding our kids, vegan or not. I can't say the typical fast food fed child is better of than the typical vegan, both are probably lacking a whole lot when it comes to essential, body building nutrients. The problems with vegan diets is that some nutrients are harder to assimilate from veggies and it is unrealistic to expect kids to eat the variety of foods necessary to get all the nutrients that are required. And then try to avoid soy (like PROCESSED soy milk) and it becomes that much harder.

Real nutrients come from real (as in non-processed) foods. Artificial nutrient are not the same. Processed foods are junk foods and not ideal for anyone, especially developing children.

I learned these things the hard way. I was veggie for over half my life, vegan for 10 years of that time. I raised my eldest vegan for the first several years of his life and started out my 2nd and 3 children vegetarian. I really believed in it, I supported PETA (before their campaigns got completely off the wall.....). I had pages of proper menu plans with lists of well-balanced meals on my wall with neat little checklists to be SURE they were getting well balanced meals. It didn't work. Maybe it *can* work, but for all the hours and efforts I put into it, it didn't. And because I believed it should (just like all the scores of books, websites, etc claim it should) I felt so much guilt when all my efforts produced the problems we had with nutrient deficiency. I couldn't admit our shortcomings for far too long and the kids suffered. Finally I had to make the changes we needed to be healthy as a family. It was the hardest choice I have had to make.

The problems we had specifically were mostly allergy related in combination with my eldest being on the spectrum and having sensory issues with most food. Interestingly, the more I researched how diet could help him the more I realized so many of the little health issues we were all having were nutritional deficiency related. I now see how we had negatively affected our children with our choice to raise them vegan. It took almost a year of special diet restrictions and concentrated efforts to get them back on track.

I believe it is no coincidence that my oldest has the most health problems, followed by my middle child. DD was primarily breastfed when we made the change back to (organic, ethically raised) meat and dairy, but even her health increased as mine did (likely because of what she was receiving through my breastmilk). And this pregnancy has clearly been my easiest, healthiest of the 4.

I wish that this hasn't been our experience. Perhaps others have had a different path. Perhaps our needs are just different than other families because we sure didn't suffer from a lack of knowledge or effort on my part! But it is what it is. And were we any worse off than the families we know who are raising their kids on hotdogs and mac'n'cheese? Hard to say. Neither contain the stuff kids need for optimal development.

Either way, it is ridiculous that the media is so quick to crucify one diet while showing ads for the other.


----------



## AmyLaz (Aug 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HelloKitty* 
There's a good response to this Op-Ed by John McDougall, MD:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007other/nytimes.html









Thank you so much for finding and posting this - it should clear up alot of issues for those who decide to read it!


----------



## Nikki98 (Sep 9, 2006)

The thing is that people are going to write/say whatever they want about this issue-I doubt if anyones mind is changed because of it. What really gets my goat is the lack of balanced nutritional info available out there. It seems like there is an agenda behind everything (or at least something to sell). Therefore many of us have done our own search for answers (thru most likely trial and error) to see what works for us each individually.

I think beyond the food issue at hand is really a bigger/sadder issue, which is why does it seem like this couple was so isolated? Did they have any family/friends near? Did anyone come visit them or the baby? To me it just seems so tragic that they had such a lack of community.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nikki98* 
I think beyond the food issue at hand is really a bigger/sadder issue, which is why does it seem like this couple was so isolated? Did they have any family/friends near? Did anyone come visit them or the baby? To me it just seems so tragic that they had such a lack of community.

oh my gosh you are so right and i am so ashamed to admit i never even thought about it.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
oh my gosh you are so right and i am so ashamed to admit i never even thought about it.









Yeah, me too. Was there no one they trusted who said anything about how thin the baby was and suggested they find out why?


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

My mom and I were just talking about this issue today (their isolation). I don't know the details of the case or trial, but it seems really sad that they go from the isolation they obviously had to being separated for the rest of their lives and left to think about the circumstances surrounding their baby's death.

Amanda


----------



## AmyLaz (Aug 30, 2006)

The baby's grandmother (father's mother) testified that she begged them to take him to a doctor b/c he was losing weight, but they said no b/c they were afraid of hospital germs and wanted to raise the child without medical interference. The first time he was ever seen by a doctor was after he was already dead.


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

I am driven nuts with comments like "the vegans I know". I am so sick of hearing about what you (collective here) see and how you can spot a vegan kid because they look so sickly and thin and frail and short! OMG how narrow minded and frankly wrong all of you are. I know not all vegan kids or adults eat the best meals but I have yet to meet a sickly looking vegan kid and my community is quite large and consists of vegan families, lots of them.

And the "I would never post this on the Veg*n forum". That statment should tell you something about the intent of your post from the begining.

[/QUOTE]I can't say the typical fast food fed child is better of than the typical vegan, both are probably lacking a whole lot when it comes to essential, body building nutrients. The problems with vegan diets is that some nutrients are harder to assimilate from veggies and it is unrealistic to expect kids to eat the variety of foods necessary to get all the nutrients that are required. And then try to avoid soy (like PROCESSED soy milk) and it becomes that much harder.


> Typical vegan children get a heck of a lot more nutrients than you seem to understand. Please remember that animals eat plants to get their nutrition it doesn't magically appear in their bodies. the only thing that vegan's need supplemented is B12. It's actually NOT harder to get a vegan child to eat a variety of food, most vegan kids eat an eclectic mix of foods from all different sources. My son and our vegan friends and cohorts eat most of these things in a given week. What do your meat eating kids eat from this list and how many times will they eat it in a week?
> 
> avocados
> Nori
> ...


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

Typical vegan children get a heck of a lot more nutrients than you seem to understand. Please remember that animals eat plants to get their nutrition it doesn't magically appear in their bodies. the only thing that vegan's need supplemented is B12. It's actually NOT harder to get a vegan child to eat a variety of food, most vegan kids eat an eclectic mix of foods from all different sources. My son and our vegan friends and cohorts eat most of these things in a given week. What do your meat eating kids eat from this list and how many times will they eat it in a week?
Er, I WAS a vegan for a long time. A well educated on nutrition one at that. And my kids were eating all those things and more (except the fake milks and we avoid nuts due to allergy, another problem of eating difficult to digest protein sources......). Yet they STILL suffered nutritionally. There is a lot more to nutrition than most vegan books will tell you. Fat soluble nutrients, how important it is to have certain vitamins and minerals together to actually assimilate them easily, etc. It isn't about the face value of how much of a particular vitamin or mineral is in a grain or veggie, it is about how much of it your body can actually utilize. THAT is the important difference that most vegan based nutritionists don't take into account. If you don't have the ability to use the nutrients in the food you eat than it isn't doing you much good. Animal foods are much easier for the human body to assimilate. Why? Because we don't have the same digestive system as herbivorous animals. Because we need things like proper fats for our bodies to run efficiently. Avacados and coconut oil can only do so much.

I don't say this as a pro-meat eater, but as a reluctant one. Vegetarianism is better for the environment and it is better for the animals with whom we share this earth. I DO say this as a former vegan (I was a veg. longer than I ever was a meat eater) who saw the consequences in my children. They are more important to me than any ideal.

And I am not bashing whole foods by any extent. We don't eat processed foods 99.9% of the time. We eat real, freshly ground grains, free range/pasture raised meat products, fresh fruits and veggies, and very little dairy because we can't get raw. We avoid food that comes in boxes whenever possible.

It is about REAL food that the body can actually use. Chicken nuggets (or chik'n nuggets for that matter) and mac and cheese (dairy or not) wouldn't qualify. That is the difference. Nutrients that the body is using vs. nutrients the body cannot fully absorb.


----------



## AlexisT (May 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vgnmama2keller* 
while "most" omni kids I know are eating macaroni and cheese with chicken nuggets for almost every meal the vegan kids I know are eating lentil soup or butternut squash ravioli with kale or beans and rice or avocado with flax oil and almond butter whole wheat toast or stuffed mushrooms. Please get a nutrition book and compare the nutrients in these foods to that of meat or dairy and then tell me that a vegan diet is lacking in essential body building nutrients. And this list isn't a-typical go to any vegan parenting board and the majority of parents will tell you they eat like that list pretty regularly and so do their kids and it is the odd person out that doesn't eat a healthy diet.

Come on, if you're going to bash people for saying "most vegan kids..." don't go repeating nonsense about "most omni kids". If you want to know what we had for tea Monday (last night was Shavuot so we had blintzes, not very healthy







), it was grilled marinated chicken breasts, boiled Jersey Royal potatoes, and fresh steamed asparagus. That's the sort of food I ate growing up and the same kind my kids will eat. Never had a chicken nugget at home in my life. (Though my mother regarded chicken schnitzel as an acceptable dinner. Home-made though. She's far from granola, either--just believed kids had to eat decent food.)

It is hard to raise small kids on a vegan diet, I think, because of their need for nutrient dense foods. There are foods like that available to vegans but there's less choice. If your kid is allergic to nuts, or is picky about pulses (dat's me, it's a textural thing) your meal planning is exponentially more difficult than it would be if you were feeding them a broader based diet. Any laziness in planning shows up much more quickly in a vegan diet than it would in an omnivorous one.


----------



## AmyLaz (Aug 30, 2006)

From Today's New York Times:

Published: May 23, 2007

To the Editor:

Re "Death by Veganism," by Nina Planck (Op-Ed, May 21):

I am a nutritionist who testified as an expert witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial of the parents of Crown Shakur. As the lead prosecutor in this case told the jury, this poor infant was not killed by a vegan diet. He was starved to death by parents who did not give him breast milk, soy-based infant formula or enough food of any kind.

Well-planned vegan diets are healthful for pregnant mothers and their infants, as well as for older children, according to a large body of scientific research. Contrary to Ms. Planck's assertions, there are healthy plant-based sources of docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA; calcium can be absorbed about as readily from soy milk as from cow's milk; and soy does not inhibit growth.

Studies have found that vegan children are within the normal ranges for weight and height, and I personally know vegan mothers and vegan children who are healthier than many of their omnivorous peers.

Amy Joy Lanou

Washington, May 21, 2007

The writer is senior nutrition scientist, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I've been part of the vegan/veg/marco community for years. I've lived in Brookline MA, home of American Macrobiotics, and in southern CA, I worked in a private school where the children had a vegetarian cook prepare two snacks and one lunch daily. We didn't give the children any dairy, either. Not all of the children were vegan, or even vegetarian at home, but the children at the school were only feed 100% organic veg/vegan food. It was one of the biggest selling points of the school.

One thing I don't want is for people to tell me I don't know what I saw first hand. Most of the children were absolutely thriving and healthy. But many were small. Being small doesn't equal unhealthy, imo. And it may be that we grow unnatually tall children on heavy dairy/meat diets. You can find studies which go either way, and I think as long as you take care, kids will thrive.

There are few natural cultures (and I can't think of one) who are 100% vegan. Most tradtional vegetarian cultures give their children some form of animal products, such as eggs and/or milk. I think veganism for full grown adults is fabulous. I think 100% veganism for children is a little more complex and takes a bit more doing. I am not against it, its just more challenging to make sure they get everything their growing bodies need.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

UUMom, I think you're totally on target.

We are 95% veg (occasionally eat sustainable fish) and as parents, we often eat vegan--I'd say at least 3 days a week. DD, however, eats dairy and eggs fairly often. I don't think these are NECESSARY. What they are is an EASY, well-liked source of fats, protein, and calcium for a picky, growing toddler. I think it's very possible to raise a healthy vegan child, but I also think the child has to be a "good" eater and the parents have to work hard.

We're considering eliminating dairy and soy because of DD's reflux, and if we do, we may be looking at DD eating some fish or poultry. I don't want to do this--it goes against my desire to live veg--but if DD's best health requires it, I will. That's all that I hope all parents do: look at the child and the child's health, and adjust diet accordingly.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Grey back gorillas are not vegans or even vegetarian. They eat insects, caterpillars, and termites as well as plants and fruits. Also, some of the leaves they eat have a surpsingly hefty amount of protein.

Most animals who graze get a great amount of protein through insects, and their bodies utilize the protein in leaves and such in a different way than humans do. I don't think we can really compare our diets.

Further, gorillas nurse a good amount of time. As I said, I am not talking about adults, I am talking about human children who grow at such a rapid rate, and need to grow large brains-- and therefore do have different nutritional needs as compared to a full grown adult.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I want to add that I see people using veganism and vegetarianism interchangeably here. I don't see them as close to the same thing, esp when talking about children. A 100% vegetarian diet is not the same as a 100% vegan diet.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

I just want to make a comment about large herbivorous animals like cows. While they do take in some animal foods directly by eating the insects and insect eggs on their grass (in a natural grazing system, that is) even though they apparently don't seek them out, they also get very large amounts of animal foods _from the microbes in their own digestive system_. By eating a plant-based diet very high in cellulose, what they're doing is essentially feeding their own colony of microbes in their multi-chambered digestive systems, and when the microbe has completed its life cycle by breaking down the cellulose to release the nutrients in the grass and reproducing, it dies and is digested in the intestines as high-protein animal food, giving its nutrients to the cow. Most herbivores I know of have a similar system of digestion, especially the larger ones. Humans do not have this ability. Comparing human nutritional requirements to those of large herbivores with very, very different digestive systems from ours is not a contructive argument, IMO, and it's deceiving to say cows grow so big on "low protein" plant diets. We can't get the same kind of nutrition from plant foods as herbivores do, because we don't have the same digestive ability or the same kind of microbial colonies.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
I just want to make a comment about large herbivorous animals like cows. While they do take in some animal foods directly by eating the insects and insect eggs on their grass (in a natural grazing system, that is) even though they apparently don't seek them out, they also get very large amounts of animal foods _from the microbes in their own digestive system_. By eating a plant-based diet very high in cellulose, what they're doing is essentially feeding their own colony of microbes in their multi-chambered digestive systems, and when the microbe has completed its life cycle by breaking down the cellulose to release the nutrients in the grass and reproducing, it dies and is digested in the intestines as high-protein animal food, giving its nutrients to the cow. Most herbivores I know of have a similar system of digestion, especially the larger ones. Humans do not have this ability. Comparing human nutritional requirements to those of large herbivores with very, very different digestive systems from ours is not a contructive argument, IMO, and it's deceiving to say cows grow so big on "low protein" plant diets. We can't get the same kind of nutrition from plant foods as herbivores do, because we don't have the same digestive ability or the same kind of microbial colonies.

Very cool!


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/v..._children.html
Vegetarian Diets: Advantages for Children

Nutrition Panel: Patricia R. Bertron, R.D., Carol M. Coughlin, R.D., Suzanne Havala, M.S., R.D., L.D.N., F.A.D.A., Virginia Messina, M.P.H., R.D., Neal D. Barnard, M.D.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vegetarian_kids.html
Vegetarian Diets for Children: Right from the Start


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

*


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

*


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

: Uh, so could we get a summary?


----------



## AlexisT (May 6, 2007)

An argument could also be made against the quantity of soya one would be eating if those recommendations were followed...


----------



## gentlemango (Jun 17, 2006)

Those studies aren't distinguishing between vegan and vegetarian. What those of us with very good, educated, widely varied, carefully balanced vegan diets who _have_ seen problems in our children have discovered, is that there is a _big_ difference between vegetarian and vegan when you're talking children's nutrition.

Think about it. *Children are designed to include an animal product (breastmilk) as part of their diet for many years.* Up until the age of 6 or 7 if you believe the evolutionary weaning arguments. In our society where children are weaned at the age of 2 or 3, we need to be getting them some kind of high-quality animal nutrition as a substitute.


----------



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

I'm not vegan anymore. I was, for a long time, until it became apparent that I had something of a fatty acid deficiency so I started eating (very carefully chosen sustainable) fish. I was already eating a ton of freshly ground flax almost every day and taking primrose oil supplements, but apparently I have a problem converting the ALA into DHA blahblahblah. I have very little interest in eating in such a way that I would have to supplement my diet in order for it to be adequate... I take a daily multi, sure... but I see supplements as supplementary, rather than THE source of certain nutrients.

ANYWAY, that said... all three of my pregnancies took place while I was vegan. My kids are WAY off the charts. My first was 9 pounds and 23 inches long at birth. My third was 10lb and 23". My middle child was smaller at birth (born early due to an abrupted placenta) but caught up to her big bro very quickly. My seven year old is still vegan. He refuses to eat eggs and dairy doesn't agree with him. My daughters get some local eggs and raw milk, but very little. Collectively, we've had ONE ear infection (my daughter when she stuck something in her ear), and we rarely get sick otherwise. Their whole lives, I have gotten nothing but "OH s/he looks so much older!" The only thing visibly off about my son (the only strict vegan in the bunch) is he has some dark circles under his eyes, that I suspect are from allergies, but we haven't found what it is he is allergic to (there is also the whole heredity thing- i have them too).

We don't eat soy, except the occasional box of tofu, and some shoyu every now and then. We don't eat fake meat (which counts as junk in my book). We shop at the crappiest (and sadly the only one within an hour's drive) grocery store ever, and manage to eat well enough. I don't find it particularly hard, never really bothered about combining proteins and all that, we just eat a very wide variety of fresh whole foods.

BUT... I have known a LOT of junk food vegans in my day. The worst were teenage girls whose parents weren't all that supportive of their choice, so they ended up eating way too many bag of chips and a soda meals. Even beyond that, it is REAL EASY to be a junk food vegan. It's hard to stare down that package of brand new vegan wonder food that mimics something you had to give up when you went vegan... and not buy it. Think back to when Soy Delish came out and we could all stop pretending that Rice Dream tasted anything like ice cream. Or when Tofutti started making a vegan thing that tasted just like a Kit Kat. Or Luna bars. Or vegan M&M's. Or Tofurkey Keilbasa. I don't eat that stuff anymore because it makes me feel like crap-o-la and it's expensive... But when a new vegan friendly food comes out, it just seems sortof special in a way that non-vegans just can't appreciate.









My opinion basically goes something like... an unhealthy diet is an unhealthy diet, period. A junk food vegan and a junk food omni eat almost identically, only vegans will eat the cheapo store brand accidently vegan chemically flavored bag of chocolate chip cookies rather than the Chips Ahoy. It's not a completely out of this world thing to say that many vegans aren't in it for their health but because of their ethical beliefs.

Simply being vegan or simply being omni isn't enough to garuntee your health either way.

My kids: http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/atlt


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

Quote:

Uh, so could we get a summary
Uh, no. read it yourself.

Quote:

Think about it. Children are designed to include an animal product (breastmilk) as part of their diet for many years. Up until the age of 6 or 7 if you believe the evolutionary weaning arguments. In our society where children are weaned at the age of 2 or 3, we need to be getting them some kind of high-quality animal nutrition as a substitute.
Breast Milk - the perfect HUMAN ANIMAL food is just that - a HUMAN animal product. It is made specifically for human babies by human mothers to give thier children exactly what they need when they need it. Cow's milk is made for baby cows to give them exactly what they need when they need it. Humans and cows are very different animals. So, while I agree that babies should breastfeed until they are ready to stop on their own and most ideally not until they are older (I think that most books whether veg or not do not give enough support to moms to breasfeed until much later than 2 or 3). But I don't agree with giving them milk from a non human animal which isn't nature's best desgin for our bodies. Sure you may think you are loading them with good fat, calcium, iron, etc but it isn't meant for your little girl or little boys bodies it is meant for a cow which is supposed to grow much faster and much fatter than our kids are ever meant to get. Yes breastfeed until they wean but then animals foods including dairy are not neccassary to have a healthy child. Some children may have allergies or sensitivities to particular food that vegans eat a lot of perhaps that is the case for "some" vegans struggling but the point is that a vegan diet is healthy - for pregnancy, infants, toddlers, kids, teens, adults, athletes, and older adults.

Quote:

An argument could also be made against the quantity of soya one would be eating if those recommendations were followed...
yes it could and yes it has already been made. there are many healthy and thriving vegans out there that don't consume soy.

Quote:

Come on, if you're going to bash people for saying "most vegan kids..." don't go repeating nonsense about "most omni kids".
Kinda sucks to read stuff like this and you felt a need to defend yourself because apparantly I was making generalizations that didn't fit your family. I wrote that on purpose but at least I made the effort to include " " which many people on this thread haven't had the decency to do. I got so ticked off at many of the posts on this thread because I (up to this point) go out of my way not to judge other people's lifestyles and yet I felt as I read this thread I felt so attacked from people who make blind judgements or whom seem to think that what they "see" and then conclude in their own heads must be accurate and they must know it all and can therefore speak about other people's lifestyle's. I guess I kinda blew my top because sometimes I hate not saying anything to let other's have their say. My first hand account's have been the complete opposite from other's. We eat vegan and our son is thriving. he is 2 and a half and almost 40 pounds and over 3 feet tall- we are not tall parents. he is smart and funny and cute and loves to eat and ask questions and play play play. We have lots of vegan friends and thier kids are thriving. We go to vegan meetups and meet other vegans with vegan kids and they are all healthy and well. So where are these unhealthy vegans that everyone sees all the time?

Just like with this horrible tragedy of the boy dying due to starvation there are and were other factors that we may never know about- media is good at covering those up or not thinking they are story worthy. Just because someone works at a school that serves veggie food but may not have all veggie kids in attendance they have no idea what goes on behind closed doors at home. And just because someone works in a vegan restaruant and "sees" sickly looking children and assumes they are vegan and must not be thriving has no idea what goes on at home. Just because someone used to be vegan and it didn't work for them and they "saw" a kid that looked pale or small has no idea what is going on at home. Excuse me if I sound bitter but I am. The whole topic of this thread was how sensationalism is being used to sell media and get people talking. But isn't that exactly what some people on this thread having been doing in their posts by saying things like- I've seen kids who are knocking on deaths door they are so small and so sickly looking and so unhealthy and their bodies can't possibly breakdown vegetable nutrients because their kids and all of this is because - wait for it-

they are VEGAN!

I hate generalizations because I have always taught that if you can find one person that doesn't fit that stereotype than it can't hold true. Not all Irish are drunks, not all white men can't dance, not all men are rapists, not all blondes are stupid, not all vegans are unhealthy.


----------



## NotTheOnlyOne (Oct 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vgnmama2keller* 
Uh, no. read it yourself.

Breast Milk - the perfect HUMAN ANIMAL food is just that - a HUMAN animal product. It is made specifically for human babies by human mothers to give thier children exactly what they need when they need it. Cow's milk is made for baby cows to give them exactly what they need when they need it. Humans and cows are very different animals. So, while I agree that babies should breastfeed until they are ready to stop on their own and most ideally not until they are older (I think that most books whether veg or not do not give enough support to moms to breasfeed until much later than 2 or 3). But I don't agree with giving them milk from a non human animal which isn't nature's best desgin for our bodies. Sure you may think you are loading them with good fat, calcium, iron, etc but it isn't meant for your little girl or little boys bodies it is meant for a cow which is supposed to grow much faster and much fatter than our kids are ever meant to get. Yes breastfeed until they wean but then animals foods including dairy are not neccassary to have a healthy child. Some children may have allergies or sensitivities to particular food that vegans eat a lot of perhaps that is the case for "some" vegans struggling but the point is that a vegan diet is healthy - for pregnancy, infants, toddlers, kids, teens, adults, athletes, and older adults.

yes it could and yes it has already been made. there are many healthy and thriving vegans out there that don't consume soy.

Kinda sucks to read stuff like this and you felt a need to defend yourself because apparantly I was making generalizations that didn't fit your family. I wrote that on purpose but at least I made the effort to include " " which many people on this thread haven't had the decency to do. I got so ticked off at many of the posts on this thread because I (up to this point) go out of my way not to judge other people's lifestyles and yet I felt as I read this thread I felt so attacked from people who make blind judgements or whom seem to think that what they "see" and then conclude in their own heads must be accurate and they must know it all and can therefore speak about other people's lifestyle's. I guess I kinda blew my top because sometimes I hate not saying anything to let other's have their say. My first hand account's have been the complete opposite from other's. We eat vegan and our son is thriving. he is 2 and a half and almost 40 pounds and over 3 feet tall- we are not tall parents. he is smart and funny and cute and loves to eat and ask questions and play play play. We have lots of vegan friends and thier kids are thriving. We go to vegan meetups and meet other vegans with vegan kids and they are all healthy and well. So where are these unhealthy vegans that everyone sees all the time?

Just like with this horrible tragedy of the boy dying due to starvation there are and were other factors that we may never know about- media is good at covering those up or not thinking they are story worthy. Just because someone works at a school that serves veggie food but may not have all veggie kids in attendance they have no idea what goes on behind closed doors at home. And just because someone works in a vegan restaruant and "sees" sickly looking children and assumes they are vegan and must not be thriving has no idea what goes on at home. Just because someone used to be vegan and it didn't work for them and they "saw" a kid that looked pale or small has no idea what is going on at home. Excuse me if I sound bitter but I am. The whole topic of this thread was how sensationalism is being used to sell media and get people talking. But isn't that exactly what some people on this thread having been doing in their posts by saying things like- I've seen kids who are knocking on deaths door they are so small and so sickly looking and so unhealthy and their bodies can't possibly breakdown vegetable nutrients because their kids and all of this is because - wait for it-

they are VEGAN!

I hate generalizations because I have always taught that if you can find one person that doesn't fit that stereotype than it can hold true. Not all Irish are drunks, not all white men can't dance, not all men are rapists, not all blondes are stupid, not all vegans are unhealthy.


Get defensive much? This thread was really interesting and full of useful information with a healthy debate until you bombed it. Could we get it back on a nice track without being snippy?


----------



## AmyLaz (Aug 30, 2006)

vgnmama2keller -







and







I couldn't agree more.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vgnmama2keller* 
Uh, no. read it yourself.

Usually people post only links to extremely long source materials. Or at minimum they edit so people don't have to scroll thru a page of things like:

Orange Juice

+

+

-

+

Nutritional yeast

=

Alfalfa.

But whatevs. To each their own.







I won't be attempting to read it.


----------



## athansor (Feb 9, 2005)

I think that the thing that makes these discussions so difficult is that many veg*ns follow the lifestyle for moral/ethical reasons first, and health reasons second. That adds a very different dimension to a discussion about eating, than, say if a Weston Price supporter was debating a person who supported the Atkins diet or a standard American diet.
In some ways, an analogy could be made to other ethical issues. If a person says that it's OK for a vegetarian to eat fish a few times a week, that might be analagous to someone saying that they oppose the death penalty except in the case of child molestors, or they believe in gentle discipline, but would spank a child who tried to run out into the street.


----------



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

vgnmama2keller- I feel for you, I really do. It's hard to not take it personally when something so important to you is up for debate. I really doubt though, that anything anyone said is meant to be a stab at veganism or at vegans in general. Keep in mind that the mamas here (for the most part) are well aware of what a healthy vegan diet looks like. It doesn't really do your side of the argument justice when you get defensive and make your point by being rude to everyone that sees things differently. Most people are more likely to change their minds when you bring respect to the table along with your ideas.

Anyway, welcome to MDC.









Quote:

But I don't agree with giving them milk from a non human animal which isn't nature's best desgin for our bodies.
As far as I know, the only good that is technically "nature's best design" for the human body is breastmilk. Everything else involves some kind of waste product after we've managed to use what we need. The human body is an amazing thing, and whether or not non-cows should drink cow's milk doesn't change the fact that the human body can and does gain some nutrition from it. The same applies to just about anything humans can eat that doesn't immediately poison our bodies. The fact that we can use such a wide variety of food sources allows the human race to survive (and even thrive) in just about any environment. We are a highly adaptable species.


----------



## gentlemango (Jun 17, 2006)

*Yes breastfeed until they wean but then animals foods including dairy are not neccassary to have a healthy child.*

My point is that this advice is just as inappropriate for a toddler as it would be for a newborn. If you cannot give breastmilk, you MUST give formula, even though it isn't vegan. Isn't that what started this entire debate, a couple who refused to do that? It's about making a substitution that supplies the same spectrum of _bioavailable_ nutrients for a child's growing brain. If you, by choice or by circumstance, cannot fill your child's nutritional needs in the way s/he was designed for (with breastmilk), you owe it to your child to come up with a substitute that is nutritionally the closest. And animal milk is closer to mother's milk than plants.

If you cannot give breastmilk for the evolutionarily correct span of time children were designed for, you must give a substitute source of those nutrients. Cow's milk is not perfect, eggs are not perfect, fish is not perfect, only breastmilk is perfect. But they will meet the child's needs in a way that plants cannot. A vegan diet is as inappropriate for a 2 year old as it is for a 3 week old.


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

Quote:

Get defensive much? This thread was really interesting and full of useful information with a healthy debate until you bombed it. Could we get it back on a nice track without being snippy?
This is a typical response from people when vegans go to defend themselves. yes you're right I got very defensive, even offered that up in my post but no I usually don't get defensive like this where I felt ready to take the gloves off. Like I said in my post I blew my top but felt a need to add something like this to the conversation or I would have gone crazy.

Am I snippy because I called people on using generalizations or tried to stick up for what I believe to be true or tried to add scientific information to a thread where there was none? Are you using snippy in the same way that men call women names like B**** and C*** becasue they (the women) are standing up for themselves and men need to use name calling as a way to make themselves feel better and the other person feel inferior?

You're right I am dragging this on and you could have just said that. "Hey, let's get back on track here. I was enjoying the debate." But you had to buy into to it too. Kinda hard not to sometimes.....


----------



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

Quote:

A vegan diet is as inappropriate for a 2 year old as it is for a 3 week old.
I disagree. Many 2 year old bodies are perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet. A newborn is a completely different story. In the absense of breastmilk, then YEAH, you need to FF. I don't think ANY of the vegans here are debating that particular fact. Everything that vgnmama2keller said referenced a child's diet _after_ weaning off the *breast*.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I think that the thing that makes these discussions so difficult is that many veg*ns follow the lifestyle for moral/ethical reasons first, and health reasons second.

ITA, this is the general problem with these discussions.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lisa Lubner* 
I disagree. Many 2 year old bodies are perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet. A newborn is a completely different story. In the absense of breastmilk, then YEAH, you need to FF. I don't think ANY of the vegans here are debating that particular fact. Everything that vgnmama2keller said referenced a child's diet _after_ weaning off the *breast*.

EXACTLY.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gentlemango* 
Those studies aren't distinguishing between vegan and vegetarian.

Also, every health study I've ever read comparing veg*n to omni does not distinguish between junk food omnis (or financially poor omni populations, in some cases) who eat mostly refined carbs and factory farmed animal foods and consciencious omnis who still include lots of whole plant foods and whose animal products come from pasture-based/free-range practices. Factory farmed meat and dairy are not the same thing as naturally-raised, quality animal foods any more than Wonder bread is the same thing as organic, wholegrain, sprouted wheat bread.

Interesting how almost every thread with "vegan" or "vegetarian" in the title turns to this eternal debate, and usually gets nasty. Food is as emotional as religion to most people, it seems.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I really don't think a vegan diet is appropriate for young children. Certainly it is better for a 2 year old than a 3 week old, tho. Because the 2 year old will, you know... live.

But really. Where is the protein? Soy? Yikes. Beans? They don't contain enough protein to meet a human's protein requirements IMO. Nuts... okay, they help. But I don't think it's enough.

I get the ethical issue. But honestly I don't think we are intended to be vegan.


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

Quote:

A vegan diet is as inappropriate for a 2 year old as it is for a 3 week old.
You're opinion sure. but here are some other's. The American Dietetic Association (ADA) and Dietitians of Canada position paper on vegetarian diets officially recognizes that well-planned vegan diets are appropriate for infancy and childhood.[1] The American Academy of Pediatrics concurs.[2,3]

Pediatric Nutrition Handbook. American Academy Of Pediatrics. http://www.aap.org/bst/showdetl.cfm?...=760&CatID=132 Accessed May 19, 2005.

Mangels AR, Messina V. Considerations in planning vegan diets: infants. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101:670-677. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00169-9. [PubMed]

Anon. Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2003;103:748-765. [PubMed]


----------



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I really don't think a vegan diet is appropriate for young children. Certainly it is better for a 2 year old than a 3 week old, tho. Because the 2 year old will, you know... live.

But really. Where is the protein? Soy? Yikes. Beans? They don't contain enough protein to meet a human's protein requirements IMO. Nuts... okay, they help. But I don't think it's enough.

I get the ethical issue. But honestly I don't think we are intended to be vegan.

Quite honestly, I don't think human beings as a worldwide group are intended to eat any particular narrowly defined diet. We all need certain nutrients to survive, and some of us can absorb things better than others, some of us have allergies... I just think there are many paths to good health and that what works for one person might not work for another.

I don't really think the vegan diet (in my case) is ideal, but my son doesn't seem to be having a problem with it. In fact, he seems a lot healthier than most of his omni friends, and not just the ones that are fast food omni.









I never really understood why people get so worked up over the protein issue. It is SO EASY to get, and there are so many _other_ issues that I could understand people being concerned about...


----------



## gentlemango (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vgnmama2keller* 
You're opinion sure. but here are some other's. The American Dietetic Association (ADA) and Dietitians of Canada position paper on vegetarian diets officially recognizes that well-planned vegan diets are appropriate for infancy and childhood.

The APA sees no problem with formula and the ADA is still recommending the standard American diet complete with refined grains and refined vegetable oil.

My entire point is that children are supposed to be getting breastmilk, which is an animal product, for WAY longer than our society permits. I think that the problems that many vegan children show is related to this. And the fact that so many of our children's health problems have cleared up with the addition of small amounts of animal products in their diets seems to support that theory.

I am not responsible for your children's health. I have no personal stake in changing your mind. I say these things and open myself up to your flames because it happened to me, and I hope that other vegan parents will take a hard look at the research and consider including some animal nutrition in their young children's diets. Make it pumped breastmilk, by all means! I may just do that myself next time.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I do not think protein is *so easy* to get. Vegans I know eat FAR too many carbs/grains, and too little protein. IMO.


----------



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
I do not think protein is *so easy* to get. Vegans I know eat FAR too many carbs/grains, and too little protein. IMO.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you on this one. Most of the vegans I have known (and I have known many) also eat far too few fresh veggies. You are entitled to your opinion, but in my experience, it takes very little effort to get enough protein... even as a strict vegan. All that stuff that was printed ages ago (I forget the title of the book, but I'll post it when I remember) about how vegetarians have to painstakingly combine foods at every meal to get complete proteins turned out to be unnecessary (and in the same book, a few editions later, they mention this revelation) as long as your diet is sufficiently varied. I mean, no you wont get enough if you only eat spagetti and tomato sauce over and over again.

Comparitively, at least in my experience, some other nutrients were much more difficult to get adequate amounts of.

This is all just my experience from my 9+ years as a vegan. And I do realize you're talking about your opinion.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

Yeah, I'm talking about my own opinion. I'm a recovering vegetarian - I eat diary and eggs, and am attempting to re-intro meat after 15 years as a veggie.

I think vegetarianism is possibly the worst thing I've ever done for my health. Of course, I was a junk food veggie, and moving to whole foods has made a world of difference for me.

But I really don't get how one would get enough protein without animal products, even if they were super careful. I'm not speaking of food combining, I know that theory has been overturned. But with the controversy re: soy, especially processed soy, I just don't think beans and nuts alone are enough. Far from it.


----------



## rzberrymom (Feb 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lisa Lubner* 
It doesn't really do your side of the argument justice when you get defensive and make your point by being rude to everyone that sees things differently. Most people are more likely to change their minds when you bring respect to the table along with your ideas.

As a lurker on this thread, I've got to say this statement is really true. That exchange kind of turned me off to learning more.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gentlemango* 
The APA sees no problem with formula and the ADA is still recommending the standard American diet complete with refined grains and refined vegetable oil.

My entire point is that children are supposed to be getting breastmilk, which is an animal product, for WAY longer than our society permits. I think that the problems that many vegan children show is related to this. And the fact that so many of our children's health problems have cleared up with the addition of small amounts of animal products in their diets seems to support that theory.

I am not responsible for your children's health. I have no personal stake in changing your mind. I say these things and open myself up to your flames because it happened to me, and I hope that other vegan parents will take a hard look at the research and consider including some animal nutrition in their young children's diets. Make it pumped breastmilk, by all means! I may just do that myself next time.

Are you assuming that vegans do not breast feed or talking specifically about the family that starved the baby? 'Cause I am pretty sure that many veg*ns here are extended nursers...


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Here's a great link on protein sources from vegan foods:
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.htm

I actually do find it pretty easy to get enough protein in my diet.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yeah, I'm talking about my own opinion. I'm a recovering vegetarian - I eat diary and eggs, and am attempting to re-intro meat after 15 years as a veggie.

I think vegetarianism is possibly the worst thing I've ever done for my health. Of course, I was a junk food veggie, and moving to whole foods has made a world of difference for me.

But I really don't get how one would get enough protein without animal products, even if they were super careful. I'm not speaking of food combining, I know that theory has been overturned. But with the controversy re: soy, especially processed soy, I just don't think beans and nuts alone are enough. Far from it.

There are computer programs that let you run numbers on the nutritional info for a diet. Even on days I eat vegan, my fat/protein/carb ratio is 15/15/70, which is well within recommended norms. And I eat very little soy.

I will say that it is very difficult to get enough calories (and thus, enough protein) in a vegan diet into a kid with a nut allergy, especially if you avoid soy, adults with lots of allergies, too. If you're allergic to wheat, gluten, soy, nuts... you run out of stuff to eat. But I know people who are allergic to poultry, pork, fish, milk and eggs too.


----------



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama* 
Yeah, I'm talking about my own opinion. I'm a recovering vegetarian - I eat diary and eggs, and am attempting to re-intro meat after 15 years as a veggie.

I think vegetarianism is possibly the worst thing I've ever done for my health. Of course, I was a junk food veggie, and moving to whole foods has made a world of difference for me.

But I really don't get how one would get enough protein without animal products, even if they were super careful. I'm not speaking of food combining, I know that theory has been overturned. But with the controversy re: soy, especially processed soy, I just don't think beans and nuts alone are enough. Far from it.

I never did the junk food vegan thing, but probably because my mom was always pretty picky about what she fed my sister and I. She had her own organic garden, my dad hunted, we never ate anything with aritficial color/flavors/preservatives. Highly processed food just doesn't taste like food to me and it never has.

But yeah, reintroducing animal foods is WEIRD. I was a HUGE meat eater before going vegan, and by the time I ate some fish almost 10 years later, it just felt alien to my teeth. After I reintroduced dairy, I couldn't drink chocolate Silk anymore... it just didn't taste good to me anymore, whereas before I would chug it straight out of the fridge when no one was looking.









ETA... btw, I DO credit extended breastfeeding for much of their good health. They each nursed until they were at least 2 years old.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Personally I think that vgnmama2keller has inadvertently proven the point that many of us are trying to discuss. Being vegan for so long and being very active within that community I have met a great variety of people who follow that diet for a ton of different reasons. In general they have been a well read, well researched bunch. Most could tell you what nutrients were needed and which foods contained those things. Just like the VERY long posts that were impossible to read.

Those sources are missing the point. Just like how many supposedly reputable sources will claim that breastfed babies will need an iron supplement after around 6 months because breastmilk has less iron when really the iron in bm is so bioavailable that less is required (whereas most of the iron in formula and baby cereals cannot be properly absorbed so more is necessary).

The numbers look nice on paper, but in reality it is lacking the important basic understanding of how our bodies actually utilizes the foods we eat. Beans have lots of proteins, that is great. But we can't actually USE all the proteins in those beans unless the fiber is broken down so we can absorb it. Fats are vitally important to how our bodies function (good quality healthy fats). Many vitamins and minerals are in fact in many different plants, but we are unable to break them down and absorb them in that form. One kind of vitamin A isn't directly translatable to another. THAT is the difference, and that is what I never found in any vegan nutritional guide.

I am sure the parents of vegan babies who used these homemade formulas really loved their children, and really thought they were doing what was in the best interest of their children. I know I believed that when I was raising my own children without animal products (though I practice extended breastfeeding). The thing is that no one is telling these parents some vitally important information about what our bodies ACTUALLY need and why. It is more about how our bodies breakdown and absorb foods, and about how bioavailable each nutrient is in each of those foods. Without actually understanding those key facts you cannot possibly understand what problems are inherent with a vegan diet for a young child.


----------



## rayo de sol (Sep 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gentlemango* 
*If you cannot give breastmilk for the evolutionarily correct span of time children were designed for, you must give a substitute source of those nutrients. Cow's milk is not perfect, eggs are not perfect, fish is not perfect, only breastmilk is perfect. But they will meet the child's needs in a way that plants cannot. A vegan diet is as inappropriate for a 2 year old as it is for a 3 week old.
*
*
*
*







:

I find it a curious that some vegan arguments compare humans to herbivores and say that if cows can survive on grass, then we can survive on nothing but plant matter (because we're so much like cows?) while other vegan arguments emphasize how different humans are from cows so we couldn't possibly thrive on their milk. Which is it?

FWIW, I was raised 95% vegan with macrobiotic leanings and fed only whole, homemade, homegrown foods, nothing processed, never sugar or white flour, lots of whole grains, raw nuts, beans, lots of kale and other greens and veggies, lots of tofu, no other processed soy besides the occasional soy milk, and even with the occasional high quality animal products in my childhood diet, I have suffered many health problems because of my near-vegan upbringing. One of my areas of worst health is my teeth. My whole childhood I just constantly developed cavities, and now my teeth have degenerated into periodontal disease, and I absolutely see a connection between my nutrient-deficient childhood diet, and my teeth problems. I wish my mother had fed me more high quality animal foods so that I could enjoy better health. I know that the foods I was raised on look good on the nutrition charts in terms of nutrient content, but what the human body is able to assimilate from these foods is a whole different matter.*


----------



## Lisa Lubner (Feb 27, 2004)

Quote:

I find it a curious that some vegan arguments compare humans to herbivores and say that if cows can survive on grass, then we can survive on nothing but plant matter (because we're so much like cows?) while other vegan arguments emphasize how different humans are from cows so we couldn't possibly thrive on their milk. Which is it?
"It's funny because it's true!" -Homer Simpson


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FreeRangeMama* 
I am sure the parents of vegan babies who used these homemade formulas really loved their children, and really thought they were doing what was in the best interest of their children.


What "homemade formulas" are you referring to? The article was about parents that fed their newborn baby only soy milk and juice... they could have fed the baby cows milk and juice with the same result.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vgnmama2keller* 

Typical vegan children get a heck of a lot more nutrients than you seem to

I wanted to comment on this. My children will eat almost all of the foods on this list. They eat a varied diet with no complaint. In fact, I only know of one or two other families with children who will eat as many different foods as my children.

We were veg. (not vegan, but very close) for a long time, probably 8 or 9 years. My children are all healthy, have all breastfed for at least 2 years. Still, I notice some things in my third child that I am sure are diet related. My second child didn't take off growth-wise until we began eating meat again.

We weren't "perfect" vegetarians, but we ate very well. I made sure that we ate a wide variety of foods every week, limited junk food, had a whole-foods based diet, not a processed, boxed foods diet. Still, I noticed things that resolved quickly after adding meat to my diet. I saw my children grow several inches and fill out (more than just normal growth). Our hair, teeth, and skin have improved.

Is it just a theory? Of course. Could it be coincidence? Absolutely. But I am not willing to risk that just for the sake of saying that we are veg. again. It was hard to begin to eat meat again. The health of my children made it worth it, and I will not look back. I fully believe that children are meant to have animal products in their intense growing years. I think that pregnant and breastfeeding women need them, too, as consecutive pregnancies and breastfeeding babies drain the body's resources faster than a plant-based diet can rebuild them.


----------



## AlexisT (May 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vgnmama2keller* 
yes it could and yes it has already been made. there are many healthy and thriving vegans out there that don't consume soy. .

Yes, I'm aware of this. I was referring to the specific material you posted.

It's definitely true that protein isn't really a concern with a well planned vegan diet. There may be other concerns, it really does depend on the individual diet.

I'm really non-militant on this. I'm obnoxiously omnivorous. I've eaten a deep fried Twinkie. (It was worryingly tasty, and I'm trying not to think about the cellular damage caused by whatever's released when the contents of a Twinkie are exposed to boiling oil.) I'm prepared to believe that not everyone thrives on identical diets and that there is no single ideal. I also thnk that talking about what we were "intended" to eat is pretty futile--if the variation in human diet has shown us anything it's that humans are capable of adaptation to a wide range of food sources. I don't think you can argue that veganism is the most natural diet, since true, sustained veganism (rather than situational veganism caused by lack of available animal foods) seems to be very rare other than amongst those who have chosen it for moral reasons.


----------



## gentlemango (Jun 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HelloKitty* 
What "homemade formulas" are you referring to? The article was about parents that fed their newborn baby only soy milk and juice... they could have fed the baby cows milk and juice with the same result.


http://www.mothering.com/discussions...6&postcount=26


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gentlemango* 
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...6&postcount=26

Oh I didn't know you were referring to the advice we all agreed was crazy and dangerous.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AlexisT* 
An argument could also be made against the quantity of soya one would be eating if those recommendations were followed...

I am helping my 13 yr old with his desire to go back to vegetarianism. We went together to the market today. I hadn't bought tofu pups in several years. My recollection was that they were organic and without GMOs, so when he put them in the cart, I wasn't concerned. (I'd be concerned with a steady diet of them, but as it's grilling season, I didn't mind). As we were waiting in the check out line, I picked it up to check it out, and I saw that, in fact, tofu pups are not organic. The number one ingredient is soy. Not organic soy, just godawful GMO soy. When I told him, and since he's studied all this he said, 'I won't eat those. GMOs are playing with fire". So we gave them back to the cashier.

He and talked about what it takes to get tofu pups to us, what it costs in terms of water and fossil fuel useage (in terms of shipping and packaging etc), poor and abused crop soil, and who -knows -what pollinating out there in the heartland, Vs what he had for breakfast this morning, which was a 5 minute old egg from one of our pastured hens.

I mean, do the math on that.

A lot of us who care bunches just can't see the point of highly processed GMO soy foods, or even organic soy foods-- they are still highly processed --taking the place of natural, whole, and non- processed veggie foods.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

What "homemade formulas" are you referring to? The article was about parents that fed their newborn baby only soy milk and juice... they could have fed the baby cows milk and juice with the same result.
I specifically had this story in mind, though I have heard of many recipes for vegan baby formulas over the years. I hadn't heard of the link the other poster mentioned though I can see why everyone agreed it was crazy and dangerous.

Quote:

Examining the label on commercial baby formula cans, Mrs. Swinton said she tried to replicate the chemical composition with natural ingredients, including ground nuts and puréed fruits and vegetables.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...57C0A9659C8B63

Though the parents in this one switched to homemade formula at 3 months as well

Quote:

Defense attorney Ellis Rubin pointed out that the other four children were raised on the same diet, and that Lamoy Andressohn stopped breast-feeding Woyah's 18-month-old sister, Rayah, at three months, just as she had Woyah, replacing the milk with a formula of wheat grass, almond and coconut juice.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/andres...10705_ctv.html


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FreeRangeMama* 
I specifically had this story in mind, though I have heard of many recipes for vegan baby formulas over the years. I hadn't heard of the link the other poster mentioned though I can see why everyone agreed it was crazy and dangerous.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...57C0A9659C8B63

I knew them. They came into the restaurant when I worked there, with the baby in a bucket seat. I remember that child. That was a really sad thing.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I simply don't see how depriving IIce of her parents is right. I think they were ill-informed. Why, I am not sure. It's a rare vegan parent who would think not breastfeeding makes sense. And most vegans who can't, or don't want to bf (as was the case for IIce's mother), do choose to feed their infants well.

It's really important for all of our society (talking US society here) to understand that there is simply no way of feeding babies that is healthy outside of breastfeeding. Even a 'good' formula is not the same. But we here know that if bfing doesn't happen, we need the expertise (as much as we hate to admit it) of a tried & true synthetic breat milk subsitute.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FreeRangeMama* 
I specifically had this story in mind, though I have heard of many recipes for vegan baby formulas over the years.

It is scary, I have heard of many scary omni homemade recipes for baby formulas as well.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
I simply don't see how depriving IIce of her parents is right.

You would if you had met them, or seen her.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HelloKitty* 
It is scary, I have heard of many scary omni homemade recipes for baby formulas as well.


Please share. The more we know, the more info we can share with questioning parents.

I worked in health food store for a number of years, and I was surpised by the number of folks looking for vegan/veg formulas. I remember the owner of the store telling one family to call an LC --that soy boxes of milk weren't enough for a new babe. She was so wonderful, and the asking parents were so sweet.

I can see some folks in this thread are assuming that all parents have all of the info we need. However, not all do. Please try to understand that.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
You would if you had met them, or seen her.

However ignorant they were, and I agree they needed intervention PRONTO- they still adore their baby.

And I must ask-- in what capacity did your see their baby? And what made you decide they were a lost cause, and should never see their babe again?


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

I'm not going to list them all here but if you do a simple google / yahoo / whatever search for "homemade baby formula" you'll get a ton of hits.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

HelloKitty said:


> I'm not going to list them all here but if you do a simple google / yahoo / whatever search for "homemade baby formula" you'll get a ton of hits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

and no doubt you wouldn't because it's not news worthy. instead the title would just be "baby dies from malnuritionment" or any number of other headlines.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HelloKitty* 
and no doubt you wouldn't because it's not news worthy. instead the title would just be "baby dies from malnuritionment" or any number of other headlines.


But the parents were vegan. It's why they didn't give her formula.

Anyone with a brain knows Vegaism didn't kill her. Just the misapplication of it, along with parents who didn't seem to understand what a baby needed. And maybe other mental health issues wrt germs and such.

I don't see why mentioning the parents are vegan is a problem.


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

I'm confused, you asked me questions and I answered them and now we've circled back to the original conversation...

Yes they were vegan, they were also very misinformed about health issues, my point was there are many omnis that are misinformed as well and give their baby's cows milk and apple juice because it's cheaper or any number of scary recipes. Those babies would have health issues because of poor diet, not because they are omnis. The headline on the story implied the baby died because the parents were vegan, not because they were misinformed, this is the problem and that was my point.

Do with it what you will, I'm kind of sick of discussing the story at this point - it's like everywhere. Stupid headline, sad case, lots of sad cases. It's too depressing to even think about anymore.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HelloKitty* 
I'm confused, you asked me questions and I answered them and now we've circled back to the original conversation...

Yes they were vegan, they were also very misinformed about health issues, my point was there are many omnis that are misinformed as well and give their baby's cows milk and apple juice because it's cheaper or any number of scary recipes. Those babies would have health issues because of poor diet, not because they are omnis. The headline on the story implied the baby died because the parents were vegan, not because they were misinformed, this is the problem and that was my point.

Do with it what you will, I'm kind of sick of discussing the story at this point - it's like everywhere. Stupid headline, sad case, lots of sad cases. It's too depressing to even think about anymore.

It is depressing, Ill give you that, and I am kind of tired of it too. And I could forget about it if this poor baby weren't dead, and the family wasn't suffering so.

In the end, I believe that it's perfectly relevant for the media to mention this family's veganism.

I respect you're wanting out. I appreciate your willingness to discuss such a sad topic. Take care.


----------



## Nikki98 (Sep 9, 2006)

Yes, this issue just seems to be such a circular debate. And while I get that with some people veganism isn't just a way of eating it is a lifestyle- it is just that sometimes holding such strong held beliefs can have consequences (just as with omnis who have to realize that there are perhaps some risks to their style of eating-especially when it comes to the type of meat and how it is raised, etc.) The thing is that we are able to determine the risks and benefits of a style of eating and then decide which is appropriate for us individually. The thing is that with a baby the benefits have to definitely outweight the risks since they are still developing. Infants do not have the luxury of trial and error as many older children and adults do.

Really lets be honest- no diet is a 100% perfect- we do not live in a perfect world.This whole situation is terrible, and in the end I just wish that these parents had the capablity to process what was going on with their child, some type of drastic intervention was needed.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I don't think you could raise a super picky eater as vegan. My kids are all super picky, one will eat just 2 or 3 foods. I'm glad when they eat ANYTHING... I don't care what, as long as it isn't candy or very processed. They are all extremely skinny, and 2 of them look like I starve them.









I think kids need dairy at least, because in our natural state they would have breastmilk well into childhood. I was willing to EBF but they weren't interested. They don't drink milk (their choice, like I said, they're picky!) but most of them will eat cheese. My son is dairy free by choice (pickiness, not health reasons) so I try to get him to drink OJ fortified with calcium.

I really think kids should be allowed to make their own choices, excluding candy, high sugar content stuff, and artificially flavored stuff...I do make homemade cookies almost every day, and while they are high in sugar, at least I can control what kind of fat and sugar (no HFCS) goes into them.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
Grey back gorillas are not vegans or even vegetarian. They eat insects, caterpillars, and termites as well as plants and fruits. Also, some of the leaves they eat have a surpsingly hefty amount of protein.

Most animals who graze get a great amount of protein through insects, and their bodies utilize the protein in leaves and such in a different way than humans do. I don't think we can really compare our diets.

Further, gorillas nurse a good amount of time. As I said, I am not talking about adults, I am talking about human children who grow at such a rapid rate, and need to grow large brains-- and therefore do have different nutritional needs as compared to a full grown adult.

True, but the non-vegan percentage of their diet is no more than 10% and usually closer to 2%. And what you say about dairy is exactly my point... I don't know how you would adjust the years, but human children need dairy (preferably mother's but a substitute animal if not possible) for the same ratio of their lifespan as other primates.

Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.

It is common for the young of a species to eat differently from the adults of that species. I believe there is a type of ant that is carniverous as young but vegan as adults.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
True, but the non-vegan percentage of their diet is no more than 10% and usually closer to 2%. And what you say about dairy is exactly my point... I don't know how you would adjust the years, but human children need dairy (preferably mother's but a substitute animal if not possible) for the same ratio of their lifespan as other primates.

Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.

It is common for the young of a species to eat differently from the adults of that species. I believe there is a type of ant that is carniverous as young but vegan as adults.

i agree with this. i don't necissarily think you *must* eat some animal products to live but i don't think a itty bit of animal products is unhealthy. but then there is the ethical issue for many...


----------



## NotTheOnlyOne (Oct 23, 2006)

meowee said:


> *Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults*.
> QUOTE]
> 
> What about nursing or pregnant mothers? I wonder what a nursing gorilla's diet is.... it has to be a little different than when she is not nursing. Its been said about 5 times in this thread already, but I am going to say it again for myself: I was vegan for 3 years in highschool and into college. I lost a ton of weight (that I needed to!) and was feeling really good for the first year. By the end of the thrid year though it was obvious my health was failing. I have permenant blood sugar issues now because of something that happened during that time in my life. I agree we don't need animal products every day, but *I* am not healthy without them and I won't risk my son's health in that way either.
> ...


----------



## AmyLaz (Aug 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtosimon* 
Aside from the ethical issue (which I know is major for some) how can you justify that a vegan diet is MORE nutritious that an omni diet? I mean... by definition an omni diet includes EVERYthing and a vegan diet doesn't even come close. So if an omni is eating everything a vegan eats PLUS some milk, eggs, cheese and a hamburger or two... how can that be LESS healthy than a vegan?

Because "EVERYthing" is not always healthy. More does not always equal better.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

the nutrients that are found in milk and eggs and meat can be found in plants and nuts and beans etc. veg*ns aren't lacking because they don't eat these foods because they just make a shift from getting those nutrients from those foods to getting them from others.

ETA- also veg*ns aren't getting the unneeded excess hormones that animals produce naturally and that some are given artificially.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.

If omnis would choose to eat the healthiest meat and dairy (i.e., grass-fed and not lean), I'll bet they could eat far less of both and feel fine. If they would improve any digestion issues they had, that would be even better.

Personally nothing is more satisfying that a grass-fed, marbled steak cooked in butter. I only need to eat the recommended amount (the size of a stack of playing cards) to feel absolutely fabulous. Unfortunately (price-wise) other meats and eggs don't give nearly the same feel-good boost. Must be the carnitine or something.

In addition, eating meat only once or twice a month is not an option for me. That is far too little for me to feel right. However, I do try to eat the least amount to feel the best. When it's hot I can cut way down too.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
the nutrients that are found in milk and eggs and meat can be found in plants and nuts and beans etc.

That's not true. Meat and dairy contain lots of nutrients that aren't in veggies.

The other problem with this argument is that the nutrients in meat are far more bio-available than what's in veggies. That is probably why some people don't do well on a veg*n diet, especially a low-fat one, and why even omnis who don't eat enough fat (which helps you absorb the nutrients in food) suffer health-wise.

Quote:

ETA- also veg*ns aren't getting the unneeded excess hormones that animals produce naturally and that some are given artificially.
Well, the phytoestrogens in soy are poison for my body. But for some reason, high-quality meat and dairy are perfectly fine. Yet other people do fine on soy and not so well on meat and dairy.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
That's not true. Meat and dairy contain lots of nutrients that aren't in veggies.

The other problem with this argument is that the nutrients in meat are far more bio-available than what's in veggies. That is probably why some people don't do well on a veg*n diet, especially a low-fat one, and why even omnis who don't eat enough fat (which helps you absorb the nutrients in food) suffer health-wise.

The only two nutrients absent in vegan foods were b12 and vit D. Granted, both are very important, but you make it sound like it's a lot more than that.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

: to meowee
plants have a higher level of bioavailability for calcium then dairy just to name *one* example. sure, veg*ns need to eat more of whatever plant or legume it is to get certain nutrients but thats not a bad thing especially when we take into account the adverse affects of eating excessive amounts of animal products- high cholesterol is the first thing that comes to mind.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtosimon* 
Aside from the ethical issue (which I know is major for some) how can you justify that a vegan diet is MORE nutritious that an omni diet? I mean... by definition an omni diet includes EVERYthing and a vegan diet doesn't even come close. So if an omni is eating everything a vegan eats PLUS some milk, eggs, cheese and a hamburger or two... how can that be LESS healthy than a vegan?

Oh...many many reasons. It is unhealthy to eat "a lot" in general, even if it is health food, regardless of whether it is omni or vegan. So if you say you will eat exactly what a healthy vegan eats, PLUS healthy omni meals on top of that, already by definition you are overeating. In fact a restricted calorie diet is the only proven dietary modification that prolongs lifespan. Higher intake of vegan foods + lower intake of meat has been linked to avoiding cancer, but the only proven method of prolonging lifespan is calorie restriction (not starvation, just restriction, so probably about 1200-1500 calories a day for your average adult).

Second, high dairy intake is linked to osteoporosis. This is pretty much indisputable and has been shown even by the dairy industries' own studies. High milk intake (I'm talking for adults here) puts you MORE at risk for bone decay, probably because of the high protein content of dairy (which also causes the calcium in dairy to be less absorbable than the calcium in vegan sources-- dandelion leaves have more **absorbable** calcium than does milk!). High milk intake is also linked to ovarian cancer.

Third: meat, no matter what the source (organic, factory, etc.) is loaded with cancer-causing free radicals. Barbecued meat even more so. Vegan foods are loaded with the OPPOSITE... antioxidants, which suppress free radical activity.

Keep in mind I am talking about ADULTS here... I believe that children do need milk (preferably human milk).


----------



## Ygle (Mar 2, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momtosimon* 
So if an omni is eating everything a vegan eats PLUS some milk, eggs, cheese and a hamburger or two... how can that be LESS healthy than a vegan?


Because, by eating higher up on the food chain you are feeding yourself higher concentrations of a variety of carcinogenic compounds. If you are nursing this is even *more* of a concern as shown by concentrations of various pesticides in breastmilk of vegans compared to non-vegans.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

And to be clear... since the only nutrients not available in vegan foods are Vit D and B12, and since both Vit D and B12 are available in cow's milk and yogurt, barring a dairy allergy/ sensitivity, there is no strictly nutritional reason to eat meat.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

I read something recently in a wonderful New York Times Magazine article on food that claimed the healthiest diet was a lacto or lacto-ovo vegetarian, or "near-vegetarian/fliexitarian" one (which he defined as living as a vegetarian but with meat "a few times a year," which is where I stand), followed by completely vegan and then typical omnivore (eating somewhat healthy but lots of meat), trailed at dead last by the Standard American (processed, full of crap) diet.

I don't know his criteria, but that looked right to me from my experience.

I DO think veganism is a wonderful choice and that it can, if done carefully, be healthy. I even think the ethical issues trump minor health issues--I'll be a little anemic (or whatever) to not be the cause of suffering.

I just don't think I can make that decision for a little kid who, in my opinion and experience, needs more than a vegan diet can provide.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Individuation, do you know the name of the article or have a link?
Thanks


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

ditto to the link. i'm dieing to read it.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
I read something recently in a wonderful New York Times Magazine article on food that claimed the healthiest diet was a lacto or lacto-ovo vegetarian, or "near-vegetarian/fliexitarian" one (which he defined as living as a vegetarian but with meat "a few times a year," which is where I stand), followed by completely vegan and then typical omnivore (eating somewhat healthy but lots of meat), trailed at dead last by the Standard American (processed, full of crap) diet.

I don't know his criteria, but that looked right to me from my experience.

I DO think veganism is a wonderful choice and that it can, if done carefully, be healthy. I even think the ethical issues trump minor health issues--I'll be a little anemic (or whatever) to not be the cause of suffering.

I just don't think I can make that decision for a little kid who, in my opinion and experience, needs more than a vegan diet can provide.

Was that the article that had the tagline something like, "What is the healthiest diet? Mostly plants, and not much" ? I remember reading that, and I believe the author mentioned calorie restriction and the carcinogenic nature of meat.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
The only two nutrients absent in vegan foods were b12 and vit D. Granted, both are very important, but you make it sound like it's a lot more than that.

Yes, it is a lot more: for instance, DHA and EPA. Also, meat is the richest source of the B vitamins and folic acid (best source: liver). Low intake of these nutrients raises levels of homocysteine.

Creatine, carnitine, and taurine are virtually non-existent in veggies. They are vital for energy production and healthy heart function.

Iron from meat is a superior source, and extremely bioavailable, too. Oh, and there's also zinc, vitamin K2, and CLA.

I feel like there may be more, but can't think of them at the moment. This short list will have to do for now.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

google (with quotes) "unhappy meals"... don't search directly through the NYtimes or you'll get the for-pay archive service,

I don't know if this is what Individuation is referring to... it's by Michael Pollan.

Quote:

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. I hate to give away the game right here at the beginning of a long essay, and I confess that I'm tempted to complicate matters in the interest of keeping things going for a few thousand more words. I'll try to resist but will go ahead and add a couple more details to flesh out the advice. Like: A little meat won't kill you, though it's better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you're much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That's what I mean by the recommendation to eat "food." Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you're concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it's not really food, and food is what you want to eat.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
plants have a higher level of bioavailability for calcium then dairy just to name *one* example.

Hmm, I think that's debatable.

Quote:

sure, veg*ns need to eat more of whatever plant or legume it is to get certain nutrients but thats not a bad thing especially when we take into account the adverse affects of eating excessive amounts of animal products- high cholesterol is the first thing that comes to mind.
For those who are sensitive to carbs, eating lots of legumes will not be a good thing.

As for the cholesterol problem-it has NOT been established that meat single-handedly raises cholesterol, not that I think high levels are automatically bad anyway.

Our paleolithic ancestors' diet contained 30 to 50% red meat. That may be why we have such a high requirement for carnitine, whose best food source is red meat.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
Yes, it is a lot more: for instance, DHA and EPA. Also, meat is the richest source of the B vitamins and folic acid (best source: liver). Low intake of these nutrients raises levels of homocysteine.

Flaxseed and rapeseed oil, and walnuts contain ALA which the body can use to synthesize DHA and EPA.

Folic Acid and B vitamins (except B12) are abundant in many vegan foods.

Quote:

Iron from meat is a superior source, and extremely bioavailable, too. Oh, and there's also zinc, vitamin K2, and CLA.
How can you say meat is a superior source of iron when there are so many iron-rich vegan foods? Especially when the damaging effects of high meat intake are considered, it would seem that vegan sources of iron are "superior."

Zinc: beans, nuts, whole grains.

Many vegan foods are rich in Vit K.


----------



## dovey (May 23, 2005)

Chicharronita said:


> Hmm, I think that's debatable.
> 
> About the calcium absorbable from plant vs. dairy foods....According to research from Dr. Connie Weaver at Purdue University, most greens (Bok choy, Broccoli, Chinese cabbage, Mustard greens, Kale, Turnip greens) have a high calcium absorption rate (40%-61%). Dairy products (milk, cheese, yogurt) have an absorption rate of 32%. Tofu's absorption rate is about the same as dairy. Beans are around 25%. Nuts and sesame seeds have an absorption rate of 21%. Certain kinds of greens which have high oxalate levels, like spinach and chard have lower rates of calcium absorption (5%-8%).
> 
> ...


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

To address a few points brought up over the past few pages, since this has turned into a vegan vs. omni diet debate:

Preformed vit. A is only available in animal foods - plants contain carotenes which theoretically our bodies convert to vit. A, but the conversion is at best 6 units of beta-carotene for 1 unit of vit. A, depending on the plant in question and the person in question, and in many cases would be much less, like more than 20 units of beta-carotene to 1 unit of vit. A. I'm not saying that adult vegans are typically lacking in vit. A if they eat enough carotenes and quality fat, but again, talking about children, they need nutrient density and won't always eat a carefully planned diet.

As for calcium from dairy - studies showing more osteoporosis with high dairy consumption are based on populations consuming pasteurized and processed dairy. I agree lots of pasteurized and processed dairy isn't likely to be healthy for anyone, but _raw, grassfed_ dairy products are a different ball of wax. The enzymes in raw dairy products allow our bodies to better assimilate the minerals and other nutrients, including calcium. Pasteurization destoys those enzymes. Tables showing the "availability" of calcium and other minerals from plant foods vs. dairy foods are also based on pasteurized dairy, and in some cases are even based on animal studies using powdered milk. Same goes for the studies finding that the protein content of dairy blocks calcium absorption or otherwise contributes to bone loss.

The cholesterol/saturated fat theory of heart disease is a farce, IMO and in the opinions of many others who have looked into it in depth. I thought that even when I was veg*n. History shows us that heart disease increased when the consumption of highly-processed polyunsaturated vegetable oils and refined carbs increased, while saturated fat consumption when _down_


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
Flaxseed and rapeseed oil, and walnuts contain ALA which the body can use to synthesize DHA and EPA.

Under optimal conditions; even so, the conversion can be extremely low-I think I just read .5%, but that was many Google searches ago.

Quote:

Folic Acid and B vitamins (except B12) are abundant in many vegan foods.
Liver has the highest amount of folic acid, far more than leafy greens. And meat has higher amounts of B vitamins naturally. Of course cereals are fortified with B vitamins, but I highly doubt that is as good as eating a whole food that contains the vitamins.

Quote:

How can you say meat is a superior source of iron when there are so many iron-rich vegan foods?
It doesn't matter how many nutrients is in a given food; what matters is how much your body can absorb. Heme iron, the form of iron found in meat, is far more easily absorbed by the body than non-heme iron from plant sources.

Quote:

Especially when the damaging effects of high meat intake are considered, it would seem that vegan sources of iron are "superior."
I don't think you need that much meat to get all the nutrients, but it sure helps to get the highest-quality meats.

Quote:

Zinc: beans, nuts, whole grains.
Like iron, zinc is most abundant in animal sources, especially oysters. And like iron, zinc absorption is greater from a diet high in animal protein than a diet rich in plant proteins.

Quote:

Many vegan foods are rich in Vit K.
K1 is not the same as K2. The only vegetarian source of K2 is _natto_, but it's not the equivalent of that found in animals eating grass (to explain the difference between K1 and K2 requires an extremely technical explanation about menaquinones).


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
K1 is not the same as K2. The only vegetarian source of K2 is _natto_, but it's not the equivalent of that found in animals eating grass (to explain the difference between K1 and K2 requires an extremely technical explanation about menaquinones).

Isn't there some K2 in other fermented plants, like sauerkraut? It's a much smaller percentage than in natto, though, IIRC. And I think that K2 in natto is actually not of plant _origin_, because it's a result of the bacterial fermentation, produced by the bacteria, not inherent in the plant.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
Was that the article that had the tagline something like, "What is the healthiest diet? Mostly plants, and not much" ? I remember reading that, and I believe the author mentioned calorie restriction and the carcinogenic nature of meat.

That was it! I'm looking for it, and can't find it!


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

I was talking to a dairy nutritionist about their use of amino acid chelate minerals in the dairy cow supplements and asked what he thought of them for humans. (They are more bioavailable but also more expensive.) He had been talking about how the stress on dairy cows -- always having babies, producing milk, living out in the elements -- required these supplemental nutrients.

He said "we don't need supplements. You can go months without zinc in your diet and still be OK."

I said "Why did I have low zinc when I was pregnant?"

"Well, that's one of those times of life stress. That's an exception."

Basically he was saying that humans don't need supplementation except possibly during exceptional circumstances. Pregnancy and lactation are an example.

And all of that is to say, I agree with Michael Pollan's argument too about lots of plants and a little bit of animal. But I am not sure that it is the best pregnancy diet. I don't eat a lot of meat right now but while recovering from the depression in pregnancy and postpartum, I ate a lot and it seemed to help me. I am pretty well recovered and I just don't eat as much as I did. If I were to get pregnant again, I would probably have more animal foods than I am having right now. They just have more of the nutrients that I tend to be low in.

Amanda


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I wrote an article about this, detailing how you can raise a vegan baby. Perhaps I should follow up with pieces about vegan children and toddlers and vegan pregnancies. I'm not vegan...but I consume very few animal products. I cook with milk now and again and pour it on my cereal; that's it. I do eat meat about five times a week, because my husband won't give it up and I don't want to cook it for just him. I also eat cheese and yogurt now and then. Fruits, vegetables, and grains make up most of my diet, and I'm extremely healthy. So is my toddler, who eats meat even less often than I do.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

I would definatley need to eat meat more than a few times a year to be healthy (I can't do milk or eggs though). I will probably be eating more in my childbearing years than when I am post-menopausal though. I now believe that humans are omnivores and have seen my family's health improve after adding animal products back into our diet. My child gained much needed weight and started sleeping better. (I was feeding him a higher protein and fat vegan diet and he was still too skinny until we added whole goat milk and meats).

As for the parents who are going to jail. I don't think veganism killed their baby...they had other issues to say the least.

About the fish oil. I think cod liver oil is awesome, but I know that one could have robust health without it. There are many landlocked people who have healthy babies!


----------



## G-Mama (Sep 2, 2004)

Can't resist responding to this thread (although I'm almost positive I'll regret it later)







so here goes...
I wouldn't call myself a vegan, since on occasion I have fish, eggs, or chicken. Maybe once every couple of months. Minimal dairy- no milk, once or twice a year cheese, no yogurt. I eat a plant-based, nutrient dense diet. Tons of leafy greens, beans and lentils, variety of veggies, raw nuts, fruits, some soy products but not much. Stay away from processed foods and imitation/fake veggie meat type food. Also try to stay away from sugar and refined flours. I take a multivitamin w/ B12 and a vegan DHA supplement and vitamin D. I just gave birth 4 weeks ago to a healthy 8lb 2oz girl and have a completely healthy and thriving 3 year old that eats the same as me, although usually he eats more.







And he's never had cow's milk. He nursed until I was 3 months pregnant. (and just an aside, at one point during my pregnancy my midwife was astonished at what incredible iron levels I had- must be all those leafy greens since didn't take a supplement.)
On any given day my toddler eats more variety than the average SAD eater. Just to compare, today his friend had watermelon and a turkey sandwich (on whitish bread with mayo and cheese- no lettuce or tomato) for lunch. Ds had soup with lentils, kale, carrots, and celery, date-nut balls with ground flax seed, a pear, some avocado, some tomatoes, and a banana. I don't think a valid argument can be made that my son is getting fewer nutrients than his friend.
I'll stop now and go get some sleep- but I'll end by posting this:
http://drfuhrman.com/members/Newslet...WebVersion.pdf
Those of you who are into the whole raw milk, WestonPrice thing might be interested in reading this. Or not. There's a reason they say ignorance is bliss.


----------



## FreeRangeMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
The only two nutrients absent in vegan foods were b12 and vit D. Granted, both are very important, but you make it sound like it's a lot more than that.

Its not that nutrients aren't AVAILABLE in plant foods, its that they aren't as BIOAVAILABLE in plant foods. Big difference.


----------



## whateverdidiwants (Jan 2, 2003)

You don't need to consume Vitamin D if you get minimal sun exposure.


----------



## vgnmama2keller (Apr 27, 2006)

here is another link to some more data, something i have yet to see on this thread, well except what i posted earlier. anyone can talk till their blue in the face about what you believe to be true about plant nutrition but lets see some scientific back up.

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007other/nytimes.html

and here is a short synopsis of what you'll find when you read the whole thing. by john mcdougall...

Nina Planck's article condemning vegan diet contains serious errors concerning the adequacy of plant foods. Plants do contain all the essential amino acids in adequate quantities to meet human needs, and even those of children (Millward). Vitamin D is not found in milk or meat, unless it is added during manufacturing. Sunlight is the proper source of this vitamin. Plants manufacture beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. The original source of all minerals (including calcium and zinc) is the ground. Plants are abundant in minerals; and they act as the conduit of minerals to animals. The scientific truth is protein, essential amino acid, mineral, and vitamin (except for B12 which is synthesized by bacteria, not animals) deficiencies are never caused by a diet based on whole plant foods when calorie needs are met. Ms. Planck's distortion of nutritional science is a serious matter that needs to be fixed.

Reference: Millward DJ. The nutritional value of plant-based diets in relation to human amino acid and protein requirements. Proc Nutr Soc. 1999 May;58(2):249-60.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

How does giving birth to a nice chubby babe on a diet that has occassional fish, eggs and dairy an argument for a strict vegan diet in an infant?

I do not know what other people are talking about, but I am talking about strict vegan diets for infants and toddlers. It's absolutely possibel to do well. It's just a bit more challenging. And no babe, vegan or omni, should not have access to adequate amounts of breastmilk or adequate amounts of a good formula.

These posts showing children can do well on vegetarian diets...well, yeah. That's not any surprised.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AJP* 
Isn't there some K2 in other fermented plants, like sauerkraut?

Yes, you're right. It's the only other non-meat food source.

Quote:

It's a much smaller percentage than in natto, though, IIRC.
Yes. 4.8 MCG/100G

Quote:

And I think that K2 in natto is actually not of plant _origin_, because it's a result of the bacterial fermentation, produced by the bacteria, not inherent in the plant.
Yes, you're right again. Veggie sources of vitamin K2 only have them through bacteria fermentation.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gale Force* 
Basically he was saying that humans don't need supplementation except possibly during exceptional circumstances. Pregnancy and lactation are an example.


Quote:

And all of that is to say, I agree with Michael Pollan's argument too about lots of plants and a little bit of animal. But I am not sure that it is the best pregnancy diet. I don't eat a lot of meat right now but while recovering from the depression in pregnancy and postpartum, I ate a lot and it seemed to help me. I am pretty well recovered and I just don't eat as much as I did. If I were to get pregnant again, I would probably have more animal foods than I am having right now. They just have more of the nutrients that I tend to be low in.
What you wrote makes a lot of sense. I've only just stopped nursing myself, after 4 1/2 years. However, I am under a lot of stress, and don't handle it well. I ate badly for about 10 years prior to conceiving my daughter, so who knows how long it will take me to get back to "normal."


----------



## G-Mama (Sep 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
I do not know what other people are talking about, but I am talking about strict vegan diets for infants and toddlers. It's absolutely possibel to do well. It's just a bit more challenging. And no babe, vegan or omni, should not have access to adequate amounts of breastmilk or adequate amounts of a good formula.

These posts showing children can do well on vegetarian diets...well, yeah. That's not any surprised.









Not sure I was clear- I agree with what you're saying 100%! My babes are 99% plant-based and are thriving. That's all I was trying to say. I just can't claim to be vegan because two or three times a year (changing my original estimate because I thought about it longer) I eat what is served without making a fuss. (in-laws come to mind) And if any of you have read Disease Proof Your Child, you'll find all of the research needed to back the claim that the less animal products a child/toddler/infant consumes the healthier they will be in the long run. Sorry I wasn't clearer.


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
What you wrote makes a lot of sense. I've only just stopped nursing myself, after 4 1/2 years. However, I am under a lot of stress, and don't handle it well. I ate badly for about 10 years prior to conceiving my daughter, so who knows how long it will take me to get back to "normal."

Exactly. It takes so much out of us and can take a while. After this period in our lives, it makes sense that we will need less of everything.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *G-Mama* 
Can't resist responding to this thread (although I'm almost positive I'll regret it later)







so here goes...

Come on in, the water's fine!









Quote:

I take a multivitamin w/ B12 and a vegan DHA supplement and vitamin D.
I hope it is D3, cholecalciferol, and not D2, ergocalciferol. The latter is practically useless as a supplement.

Quote:

I just gave birth 4 weeks ago to a healthy 8lb 2oz girl.
Congratulations!

Quote:

(and just an aside, at one point during my pregnancy my midwife was astonished at what incredible iron levels I had- must be all those leafy greens since didn't take a supplement.)
That's great that you're able to absorb a lot of iron with your greens. Maybe your body is more efficient at it, and/or you eat enough fat.

Quote:

On any given day my toddler eats more variety than the average SAD eater. Just to compare, today his friend had watermelon and a turkey sandwich (on whitish bread with mayo and cheese- no lettuce or tomato) for lunch. Ds had soup with lentils, kale, carrots, and celery, date-nut balls with ground flax seed, a pear, some avocado, some tomatoes, and a banana. I don't think a valid argument can be made that my son is getting fewer nutrients than his friend.
Is it really fair to compare the diet of your child, whose mother is knowledgeable about nutrition, to his friend's? I'd sure like to read more comparisons/studies besides the ones comparing a vegetarian diet and SAD.

Quote:

I'll stop now and go get some sleep- but I'll end by posting this:
http://drfuhrman.com/members/Newslet...WebVersion.pdf
Yeah, I've read that. There are numerous inaccuracies about WAP and the Foundation in there (just for a start, the WAPF advocates breastmilk for infants, and home-made formula as a last resort).

Fuhrman, and others like him (Robbins, Campbell, etc.) have their own biased view of optimal nutrition. When you read their writings, a lot of it makes sense at face value, especially Fuhrman's nutrient-density scoring system, but it has flaws like the fact that he doesn't account for bioavailability; many of the nutrients he measures are much less bioavailable than from animal foods, but he doesn't make those adjustments.

There are other crucial things to keep in mind:

Yes there is protein in non-meat foods, but it's questionable how much gets absorbed since it's bound up with fiber. However, he's probably right that some people only need 10%. Personally, I'd rather eat an egg and be done with it, knowing it will be well-absorbed by my body because it has fats and vitamins all in one easy-to-eat package.

Another thing to keep in mind about fiber: 80-90% of the carotenes in vegetables are excreted because they are bound up in the fiber. And I won't go into another long-winded discussion about oxalates and phytates because I haven't had breakfast yet.









There is calcium in veggies, but you have to eat 4 cups of kale to get the equivalent of what's in one cup of milk, with the caveat that the calcium in milk is more available since it has fat and vitamins all in one package like eggs and meat. (I also think most people get enough calcium, and probably need to work on getting more magnesium in their diet). It seems like on his diet you would spend your whole day munching food like a cow, but I have better things to do with my time.

Even Fuhrman admits that his diet has the potential to be lacking for vegans in vitamin D, vitamin B12, iodine and DHA, although he should add to the list vitamin A, zinc, and some of the other B vitamins. He also gets a brownie point for not whole-heartedly recommending soy.

And neither of his links about life expectancy for the Maasai work.

Quote:

Those of you who are into the whole raw milk, WestonPrice thing might be interested in reading this. Or not. There's a reason they say ignorance is bliss.
That goes double for Fuhrman, who I seriously doubt has read Price's _Nutrition and Physical Degeneration_. The information Price discovered about fat, meat, and diet flies in the face of what he thinks is an optimal diet.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *whateverdidiwants* 
You don't need to consume Vitamin D if you get minimal sun exposure.

True, but that's a big IF. For those that live outside of 34 degrees latitude there's a "Vitamin D Winter," where people can't get enough or any D from the sun during winter; in some places, it can be up to six months.

In addition, variations in the ozone layer's density can cause the length of the "Vitamin D Winter" to increase or decrease by up to two months. Aerosols and buildings block UV-B radiation; clouds can eliminate up to 99 percent of UV-B radiation.

Those are just things I can think of off the top of my head on an empty stomach.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
That was it! I'm looking for it, and can't find it!

You have to google "unhappy meals" (with the quotes) and the author's name.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

I'd like to ask the omnis here what percentage overall of a healthy omni diet they believe animal products should be. So could you break down your belief for me in percentages, i.e. 50% vegan, 25% dairy, 25% meat for instance.

Oh, and please give me two sets of numbers: one for CHILDREN, the other for ADULTS.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

All of Michael Pollan's stuff is available here (including Unhappy Meals): http://www.michaelpollan.com/write.php

G-Mama - I don't appreciate the implication that anyone who thinks raw, whole, grassfed milk is nutritionally different than pasteurized milk is ignorant. I actually do read many points of view that differ from my current position, because I like to be fully informed. I've read a lot of vegan-based nutritional information, when I _was_ veg*n and now that I'm not. That Furhman newsletter is so full of holes, I don't have time to address even a fraction of them. WAPF does not have all the answers, IMO, and I disagree with them and their ilk about quite a few things (most notably feeding of babies and children), but Fuhrman resorts to just as many inaccuracies, exaggerations and selective use of information to distort Weston Price's work and lambaste the WAPF as the other side uses when they bash vegans.

FWIW, Weston Price's work happened long before any of the people using his name now were even born, and my personal opinion is that he wouldn't be too happy about some of the stuff put out there that uses his research as justification.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vgnmama2keller* 
Plants do contain all the essential amino acids in adequate quantities to meet human needs, and even those of children (Millward).

Sure they do; but as I've pointed out in my PP, there are factors in plant foods that don't make nutrients as bioavailable as they are in animal foods.

In fact, a lot of the arguments he uses in promoting a plant-based diet I already addressed, and like I pointed out in criticism of Fuhrman, Robbins, and Campbell, getting nutrients from plants isn't as simple as just consuming them. Cows can do it, but we can't, so I wish they'd stop comparing us to herbivores.

There's one thing McDougall wrote that threw me off:

Quote:

Vitamin D is not found in milk or meat, unless it is added during manufacturing. Sunlight is the proper source of this vitamin.
Planck doesn't say that vitamin D is found in milk. Vitamin D is found in fish, butter and egg yolk.

I've already addressed getting vitamin D from the sun in a PP, so I won't re-hash it here.

ETA:

I can't believe I missed this sentence:

"The human body has no difficulty converting plant-derived omega-3 fat, alpha linolenic acid, into DHA or other n-3 fatty acids, supplying our needs even during gestation and infancy."

That is true only for some people. The conversion of alpha linolenic acid into usable omega-3s is blocked in people with low levels of the enzyme delta 6 desaturase, especially those whose ancestors ate a lot of fish (like Native Americans).


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
I'd like to ask the omnis here what percentage overall of a healthy omni diet they believe animal products should be. So could you break down your belief for me in percentages, i.e. 50% vegan, 25% dairy, 25% meat for instance.

Oh, and please give me two sets of numbers: one for CHILDREN, the other for ADULTS.

Meowee, I don't think there is a single set of answers to that question. Every body is different. Furthermore, every body's needs change at different times of life, with different levels of activity, etc.

I do not discount the idea that a purely vegan diet can be healthful for some people. I'm not 100% comfortable with it, but I recognize that bodies are so vastly different, and the field of knowledge about nutrition is so contentious, that I don't fall into the trap of thinking *I* know something that most other people don't and pass judgment.

The level at which it starts becoming obvious to me that you're within range is at about 2% animal product and 98% plant matter. That animal product could be eggs, dairy or meat (preferably fish). I don't differentiate, not when generalizing (though one or two of those could be the "right" choice for a particular individual.)

At the other extreme, I think about 40% animal product and 60% vegetable. But I do think that's an extreme, probably for people who's body is lacking something and trying to recharge for a period of time.

I would guess the height of the bell curve probably falls between 10-25% of your diet.

I don't differentiate between milk, eggs or dairy because, again, different people's bodies react very differently to these things. Some people cannot safely eat one or more of those groups of food. Some feel gassy and have blood sugar swings with that portion of their diet is predominantly dairy. Others feel heavy and weighed down when it's meat. Some can substitute effectively between the different proteins without any negative effect.

When I stopped being veg after about 15 years, for a while I ate only an occasional portion of poultry and fish. But my body craved more and more. Eventually, I gave in to that. I ate meat pretty heavily for a while. It would seem that my body caught up to where it wanted to be in some respect, because I don't crave it as much anymore. I'd say, probably 15% of my diet is animal product, and at least half of that is dairy. While I feel best when I have meat frequently, it does not have to be large portions.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Something to consider with a largely plant-based diet, whether vegan or omni...most plant foods, which the exception of most of the grains and legumes and a very few veggies and fruits, contain a natural pesticide called salicylates. Salicylates have to be detoxed by the liver, and everyone has a finite capacity for detoxing them. IIRC the capacity of the average person is 16 mg/day...if you eat several pieces of fruit a day, to say nothing of leafy greens, coconut or EVOO, nuts, cocoa, etc, it's highly likely that you're putting a lot of strain on your liver, even if you have no apparent problems related to salicylate consumption. And symptoms of eating too many salicylates can be very subtle, like slightly impaired social skills (speaking from personal experience...I always wondered why I was so awkward in social situations, and now I know). And unlike some plant compounds like oxalates, phytates, and lectins, there's no really no way to lower salicylate contect by preparing foods differently (although peeling and/or discarding outer parts of fruits and veggies will lower salicylate content somewhat).

I suspect this is one of the reasons that the native populations that Dr. Price studied tended to base their diets around either animal products or grains/legumes, which don't contain salicylates.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson* 
Meowee, I don't think there is a single set of answers to that question. Every body is different. Furthermore, every body's needs change at different times of life, with different levels of activity, etc.

I do not discount the idea that a purely vegan diet can be healthful for some people. I'm not 100% comfortable with it, but I recognize that bodies are so vastly different, and the field of knowledge about nutrition is so contentious, that I don't fall into the trap of thinking *I* know something that most other people don't and pass judgment.

The level at which it starts becoming obvious to me that you're within range is at about 2% animal product and 98% plant matter. That animal product could be eggs, dairy or meat (preferably fish). I don't differentiate, not when generalizing (though one or two of those could be the "right" choice for a particular individual.)

At the other extreme, I think about 40% animal product and 60% vegetable. But I do think that's an extreme, probably for people who's body is lacking something and trying to recharge for a period of time.

I would guess the height of the bell curve probably falls between 10-25% of your diet.

I don't differentiate between milk, eggs or dairy because, again, different people's bodies react very differently to these things. Some people cannot safely eat one or more of those groups of food. Some feel gassy and have blood sugar swings with that portion of their diet is predominantly dairy. Others feel heavy and weighed down when it's meat. Some can substitute effectively between the different proteins without any negative effect.

When I stopped being veg after about 15 years, for a while I ate only an occasional portion of poultry and fish. But my body craved more and more. Eventually, I gave in to that. I ate meat pretty heavily for a while. It would seem that my body caught up to where it wanted to be in some respect, because I don't crave it as much anymore. I'd say, probably 15% of my diet is animal product, and at least half of that is dairy. While I feel best when I have meat frequently, it does not have to be large portions.

What a good post.

I was thinking maybe 3-6% animal stuff- not nec flesh at all, for my kids and less for dh and me. It didn't take much for my headaches to go away. Maybe a little yogurt, or an egg a few times a week, a small amount of baked fish. I don't even think flesh is necessary for dh & me, but I think some people do need it. For my nursing toddlers I found a couple of eggs a week, some organic cheese with that avo & pita. Whatever they'd eat. If a breatfed toddler isn't picky and chows down his organic tempeh and seeds and avo, cool. My kids eat all that and turkey. (Well, one just went back to being a lacto-ovo veg). I do freak out at non organic soy in any form for anyone. I can't see a diet of Morning Star farms (GMO) for small kids.


----------



## G-Mama (Sep 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Something to consider with a largely plant-based diet, whether vegan or omni...most plant foods, which the exception of most of the grains and legumes and a very few veggies and fruits, contain a natural pesticide called salicylates. Salicylates have to be detoxed by the liver, and everyone has a finite capacity for detoxing them. IIRC the capacity of the average person is 16 mg/day...if you eat several pieces of fruit a day, to say nothing of leafy greens, coconut or EVOO, nuts, cocoa, etc, it's highly likely that you're putting a lot of strain on your liver, even if you have no apparent problems related to salicylate consumption. And symptoms of eating too many salicylates can be very subtle, like slightly impaired social skills (speaking from personal experience...I always wondered why I was so awkward in social situations, and now I know). And unlike some plant compounds like oxalates, phytates, and lectins, there's no really no way to lower salicylate contect by preparing foods differently (although peeling and/or discarding outer parts of fruits and veggies will lower salicylate content somewhat).

I suspect this is one of the reasons that the native populations that Dr. Price studied tended to base their diets around either animal products or grains/legumes, which don't contain salicylates.

Seems like you may be mistaken.

http://jcp.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/56/9/649


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *G-Mama* 
Seems like you may be mistaken.

http://jcp.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/56/9/649

Actually there's been quite a bit of research on the negative effects that salicylates can have. Perhaps in small dose they are beneficial to some people who are not overly sensitive, but I have personally experienced the deterimental effects of consuming too many salicylates, and I have seen the effects on my DD as well. I have also read many, many other stories of people who have suffered from the effects of salicylates. Quite a few children with autism or ADD/ADHD have problems with salicylates as well.

http://www.cs.nsw.gov.au/rpa/Allergy/default.htm This is a link to the hospital in Australia that pioneered the research in food chemicals like salicylates. There have been several books published on this subject ("Fed Up", "Fed Up with ADHD", and "Fed Up With Asthma", all by Sue Dengate)...unfortunately they were published in New Zealand and are very hard to find in this country. Sue Dengate's website is www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info www.plantpoisonsandrottenstuff.com is another website that discusses food chemical intolerances and also lists amounts of salicylates in common foods.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Quite a few children with autism or ADD/ADHD have problems with salicylates as well.

No, this is incorrect. Sensitivity to salicylates can produce symptoms that mimic ADD/ADHD, but someone who has true ADD/ADHD is not helped by eliminating salicylates.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
No, this is incorrect. Sensitivity to salicylates can produce symptoms that mimic ADD/ADHD, but someone who has true ADD/ADHD is not helped by eliminating salicylates.

What's your definition of "true ADD/ADHD"? I have read quite a few stories of kids diagnosed with ADD or ADHD who were helped by the Failsafe diet (which eliminates salicylates for those sensitive to them). "Fed Up with ADHD" also mentions a study where a high percentage (75% or greater, don't remember the exact number) of kids with ADD or ADHD showed improvement after implementing the Failsafe diet.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

I pretty much agree with tboroson on the ratio of animal to plant foods answer. As an omni, I still think that vegetables and other plant foods are amazing foods that promote health but we still need animal products along with them to maximize the plant foods benefits. If it was laid out on a plate, I eat about 1/4 meat 1/2 vegetable 1/4 starchy veg or rice with a couple tbs of fat. I think veggies are great for gettingin all those minerals, but we need the retinol in animal products and fat to untilize them.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Actually there's been quite a bit of research on the negative effects that salicylates can have. Perhaps in small dose they are beneficial to some people who are not overly sensitive, but I have personally experienced the deterimental effects of consuming too many salicylates, and I have seen the effects on my DD as well. I have also read many, many other stories of people who have suffered from the effects of salicylates. Quite a few children with autism or ADD/ADHD have problems with salicylates as well.

http://www.cs.nsw.gov.au/rpa/Allergy/default.htm This is a link to the hospital in Australia that pioneered the research in food chemicals like salicylates. There have been several books published on this subject ("Fed Up", "Fed Up with ADHD", and "Fed Up With Asthma", all by Sue Dengate)...unfortunately they were published in New Zealand and are very hard to find in this country. Sue Dengate's website is www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info www.plantpoisonsandrottenstuff.com is another website that discusses food chemical intolerances and also lists amounts of salicylates in common foods.

Isn't the Feingold diet the avoiding the same chemicals- ones that are aspirin like? Not everyone is sensitive to them, though.

Another thing that can irritate the liver and cause damage is over eating meat.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Something to consider with a largely plant-based diet, whether vegan or omni...most plant foods, which the exception of most of the grains and legumes and a very few veggies and fruits, contain a natural pesticide called salicylates. Salicylates have to be detoxed by the liver, and everyone has a finite capacity for detoxing them. IIRC the capacity of the average person is 16 mg/day...if you eat several pieces of fruit a day, to say nothing of leafy greens, coconut or EVOO, nuts, cocoa, etc, it's highly likely that you're putting a lot of strain on your liver, even if you have no apparent problems related to salicylate consumption. And symptoms of eating too many salicylates can be very subtle, like slightly impaired social skills (speaking from personal experience...I always wondered why I was so awkward in social situations, and now I know). And unlike some plant compounds like oxalates, phytates, and lectins, there's no really no way to lower salicylate contect by preparing foods differently (although peeling and/or discarding outer parts of fruits and veggies will lower salicylate content somewhat).

I suspect this is one of the reasons that the native populations that Dr. Price studied tended to base their diets around either animal products or grains/legumes, which don't contain salicylates.

This has to be the nuttiest warning against vegan foods I've ever read. If this "poison" is so toxic why are vegans not dropping dead in droves from liver failure? And never mind that many vegan foods have practically miraculous effects on the liver... like carrot juice.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
What's your definition of "true ADD/ADHD"? I have read quite a few stories of kids diagnosed with ADD or ADHD who were helped by the Failsafe diet (which eliminates salicylates for those sensitive to them). "Fed Up with ADHD" also mentions a study where a high percentage (75% or greater, don't remember the exact number) of kids with ADD or ADHD showed improvement after implementing the Failsafe diet.

According to the doctors that treated me as a child, the children whose symtoms improve with dietary changes have a food intolerance. ADD/ADHD is _supposed_ to only be diagnosed when _no other cause_ for the symptoms can be discovered (common other causes are subtle sensory disabilities, psychological trauma, illness, allergies). Unfortunately, many children are being placed on ADHD medications without first checking for all the other possible causes. 25 years ago, it took visits to a neurologist, a psychiatrist, and a pediatrician, 6 months on the Feingold diet and a year of other tests (hearing, sight, EEG, blood workups) before ADD/ADHD drugs were prescribed. Now the drugs are prescribed by pediatricians, often on the first visit, based mostly on reports from school counselors, without much further testing at all.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
According to the doctors that treated me as a child, the children whose symtoms improve with dietary changes have a food intolerance. ADD/ADHD is _supposed_ to only be diagnosed when _no other cause_ for the symptoms can be discovered (common other causes are subtle sensory disabilities, psychological trauma, illness, allergies). Unfortunately, many children are being placed on ADHD medications without first checking for all the other possible causes. 25 years ago, it took visits to a neurologist, a psychiatrist, and a pediatrician, 6 months on the Feingold diet and a year of other tests (hearing, sight, EEG, blood workups) before ADD/ADHD drugs were prescribed. Now the drugs are prescribed by pediatricians, often on the first visit, based mostly on reports from school counselors, without much further testing at all.

Well then according to studies all children with ADD/ADHD should be trialed on the Failsafe diet, and if it doesn't help they can truly be diagnosed with ADD/ADHD.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
This has to be the nuttiest warning against vegan foods I've ever read. If this "poison" is so toxic why are vegans not dropping dead in droves from liver failure? And never mind that many vegan foods have practically miraculous effects on the liver... like carrot juice.

I specifically stated that ANYONE who eats a lot of these foods should consider the possible effect of salicylates. There are plenty of omnis, particularly in this forum, who eat loads of veggies, fruits, coconut oil, etc.

And I never said that plant foods couldn't have beneficial effects...but if someone is sensitive to salicylates, carrot juice is going to stress their liver, not be beneficial.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *melissa17s* 
Isn't the Feingold diet the avoiding the same chemicals- ones that are aspirin like? Not everyone is sensitive to them, though.

Another thing that can irritate the liver and cause damage is over eating meat.

Feingold diet isn't strict enough for many people, and Failsafe also eliminates a lot of other food chemicals that Feingold doesn't touch. Also, while not everyone is overly sensitive, EVERYONE has a tolerance level. Some people may have a very high tolerance level, but as I mentioned in a previous post, a study found that the average tolerance level for salicylates for normal healthy people is 16 mg/day. To put that in perspective, if you eat 1/2 cup of figs, a cup of green grapes, a cup of raspberries, and 1/2 cup of almonds in a day, that'd be roughly 16 mgs of salicylates.

Funny how none of the groups that Dr. Price studied who ate tons of meat had liver damage, or any health problems at all. I imagine eating commercial meat with all its antibiotics and growth hormones is hard on the liver because all that stuff is detoxed through the liver. I highly doubt there are any studies showing that grass-fed/pastured meat is linked to liver problems, or any other health problems. If someone's seen a study to that effect, I'd love to see links.

My point in posting my OP was not to bash vegan diets, but to hopefully make anyone who eats a lot of plant based foods other than grains and legumes aware of the possible detrimental effects of salicylates. There are an awful lot of kids out there with ASD, ADD/ADHD, eczema, multiple food allergies/intolerances...all of which have been linked to salicylates (among other things of course). If you don't feel this information applies to you, disregard it. That doesn't mean it's invalid for many people, or that people shouldn't hear about it.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Funny how none of the groups that Dr. Price studied who ate tons of meat had liver damage, or any health problems at all.

that is funny. no health problems at all? that is really just laughable.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
that is funny. no health problems at all? that is really just laughable.

You're welcome to read the book and see for yourself. "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Dr. Weston A Price. None of the groups he studied who ate their traditional foods had health problems although they ate a wide variety of different diets, albiet all with some animal products. Some ate only small amounts of animal products, while others ate almost exclusively animal products.


----------



## athansor (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
You're welcome to read the book and see for yourself. "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" by Dr. Weston A Price. None of the groups he studied who ate their traditional foods had health problems although they ate a wide variety of different diets, albiet all with some animal products. Some ate only small amounts of animal products, while others ate almost exclusively animal products.

I admit I haven't read the book, but I do know it was written 60 years ago. So, for someone who has read the book, what techniques did he use in his research to determine that people had no liver damage and no health problems?


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I admit I haven't read the book, but I do know it was written 60 years ago. So, for someone who has read the book, what techniques did he use in his research to determine that people had no liver damage and no health problems?









:

and i'm sorry but no diet is health gold with no illness at all ever occuring in the people who follow it. sorry. just doesn't work that way. veg*ns and TF/omnis can still get cancer. it's less among veg*n, yes, but not an impossiblity.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I admit I haven't read the book, but I do know it was written 60 years ago. So, for someone who has read the book, what techniques did he use in his research to determine that people had no liver damage and no health problems?

Let me rephrase that...they had no apparent health problems. No cancer, no heart disease, no diabetes, no bowel disorders, no eczema, few if any dental cavities, no crowded teeth, easy childbirths, etc. Most had no doctors because they had no need of them. The elderly people were still very active and healthy even at advanced ages.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 







:

and i'm sorry but no diet is health gold with no illness at all ever occuring in the people who follow it. sorry. just doesn't work that way. veg*ns and TF/omnis can still get cancer. it's less among veg*n, yes, but not an impossiblity.

It's well-documented in the book. Today I don't believe it's possible to be totally disease-free because of other factors like depleted soils, environmental toxins, high stress levels, etc, but it did happen among the groups that Dr. Price studied.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Well then according to studies all children with ADD/ADHD should be trialed on the Failsafe diet, and if it doesn't help they can truly be diagnosed with ADD/ADHD.

Potentially, yes, though I don't believe Failsafe is being recommended by most mainstream doctors. Unfortunately, since kids with food sensitivities also have symptom improvement with drug treatment and popping a pill once a day is more convenient than following a complicated diet plan, the step of dietary changes is usually skipped.

I haven't run across references to Failsafe in my research, so I doubt that the leading experts on ADD/ADHD are recommending it at this time, but I strongly suggest that any child diagnosed with ADD/ADHD try a few dietary modification theories before being subjected to the serious risks of drug therapy. Ritalin, Adderal etc. have been linked to growth retardation, obsessive/compulsive behavior, paranoia, learning extremely unhealthy eating patterns, confusion over hunger signals, and obesity (when the medication is stopped).


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
I'd like to ask the omnis here what percentage overall of a healthy omni diet they believe animal products should be. So could you break down your belief for me in percentages, i.e. 50% vegan, 25% dairy, 25% meat for instance.

Oh, and please give me two sets of numbers: one for CHILDREN, the other for ADULTS.


My theory is as little as possible. I think adults should limit animal products to a few times a week at most, and kids 1-2 servings a day at most.

My reasons for this are the fact that I feel that the implications of global warming, ozone depletion and other environmental factors exacerbated by large scale meat production are going to be more dangerous in the long run than any theoretical nutritional deficit. I feel that small scale livestock has benefits, but we don't have the resources on this planet to support all humans eating meat everyday, and if we keep going the way we are, we're not going to be able to turn back. Yes pastured beef and dairy are environmentally superior to feedlot products, BUT we have too many people to feed us all that way.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I admit I haven't read the book, but I do know it was written 60 years ago. So, for someone who has read the book, what techniques did he use in his research to determine that people had no liver damage and no health problems?

The book is online for free:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib.../pricetoc.html

Isolated and modernized Australian Aborigines
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib...e/price10.html

Just scroll throught the chapters and look at the pictures if you don't want to read it. It is truly amazing. About the health problems--In the Massai (African tribe) group, I read that someone did autopsies and found no heart disease and they had other markers for cardiovascular health. (If anyone knows where that info is please post!) They ate mostly milk meat and blood. So, if meat causes all these health problems, why were these people so healthy?http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib...ce/price9.html

Quote:

One wonders at the apparent health of the natives until he learns of the unique immunity they have developed and which is largely transmitted to the offspring. In several districts we were told that practically every living native had had typhus fever and was immune, though the lice from their bodies could transmit the disease. One also wonders why people with such resistance to disease are not able to combat the degenerative diseases of modern civilization. When they adopt modern civilization they then become susceptible to several of our modern degenerative processes, including tooth decay.

Dr. Anderson who is in charge of a splendid government hospital in Kenya, assured me that in several years of service among the primitive people of that district he had observed that they did not suffer from appendicitis, gall bladder trouble, cystitis and duodenal ulcer. Malignancy was also very rare among the primitives.

It is of great significance that we studied six tribes in which there appeared to be not a single tooth attacked by dental caries nor a single malformed dental arch.
I agree that no diet could provide the level of health that these people enjoyed because of the factors Caedmyn listed, but I do believe they give us general ideas of what to eat to lessen our chances of disease and live well.

Jen


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
Potentially, yes, though I don't believe Failsafe is being recommended by most mainstream doctors. Unfortunately, since kids with food sensitivities also have symptom improvement with drug treatment and popping a pill once a day is more convenient than following a complicated diet plan, the step of dietary changes is usually skipped.

I haven't run across references to Failsafe in my research, so I doubt that the leading experts on ADD/ADHD are recommending it at this time, but I strongly suggest that any child diagnosed with ADD/ADHD try a few dietary modification theories before being subjected to the serious risks of drug therapy. Ritalin, Adderal etc. have been linked to growth retardation, obsessive/compulsive behavior, paranoia, learning extremely unhealthy eating patterns, confusion over hunger signals, and obesity (when the medication is stopped).

Unfortunately Failsafe is almost unheard of in the United States, even among alternative medicine practitioners, because the research was done in Australia and the books on it were published in New Zealand.


----------



## Individuation (Jul 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
I'd like to ask the omnis here what percentage overall of a healthy omni diet they believe animal products should be. So could you break down your belief for me in percentages, i.e. 50% vegan, 25% dairy, 25% meat for instance.

Oh, and please give me two sets of numbers: one for CHILDREN, the other for ADULTS.

Well, here's my take on things in my family:

ME (female, 31): Vegan in all of my "alone time" eating. I will eat dairy at family dinner. While pregnant and nursing, I will eat small-farmed hormone-free beef or safe fish once or twice a month. I do not eat pork or chicken at all. I do all the food shopping for the family. We spend insane amounts of money on fresh produce every week--my aversion to meat doesn't save us a cent. I'm not a big legume/pulse/nut person, so a lot of my protein avenues are closed off. I'd like to be totally vegan. I cook for the family--I don't use broths or other meat products. I do use dairy, but sparingly. I will eat baked goods with animal products (butter, milk) in them, while pregnant, if craving them.

DH (male, 31): Seems to need a bit more animal product than me in his diet. Eats like me at home, eats some meat while out and at work.

DD (9): Eats like me with extra eggs and dairy (brings cheese in her school lunch every day). Eats meat when visiting her father.

I don't know how that would stack up as a family-wide percentage?


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
a study found that the average tolerance level for salicylates for normal healthy people is 16 mg/day. To put that in perspective, if you eat 1/2 cup of figs, a cup of green grapes, a cup of raspberries, and 1/2 cup of almonds in a day, that'd be roughly 16 mgs of salicylates.

There are an awful lot of kids out there with ASD, ADD/ADHD, eczema, multiple food allergies/intolerances...all of which have been linked to salicylates (among other things of course). If you don't feel this information applies to you, disregard it. That doesn't mean it's invalid for many people, or that people shouldn't hear about it.

What you wrote has given me pause. My dd can easily eat more than 16 mg of salicylates a day; I know I can too, especially during the summer.

Ironically, when I was strictly on the Atkins diet last year, and increasing the variety of fruits and vegetables in my diet, I started getting really bad hives, but I thought it was stress. I wonder if it's because I increased the amount of salicylate-rich foods? I looked on the list available here, and here is where my favorite foods fall:

*Moderate*: lettuces other than iceberg, mushrooms, black olives, desiccated coconut, peanut butter, walnuts.

*High*: Avocado







, broccoli, fresh spinach, tomato puree, pistachio.

*Very high*: blackberry, blueberry, strawberry, chilli peppers, endive, tinned green olives, peppers, radish, water chestnut, almonds, coconut oil, olive oil.

Lately I've realized that I'm sensitive to black pepper. But that is on the *extremely high* list, along with many wonderful spices.

I also notice that I can't take coconut oil straight from a spoon without feeling weird.

This really sucks. It will be hard to eliminate these things from my diet!

Quickly looking over this list, I notice that meats, eggs, dairy and grains have virtually no salicylates (and are what a lot of the healthy groups WAP studied ate).


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Let me rephrase that...they had no apparent health problems. No cancer, no heart disease, no diabetes, no bowel disorders, no eczema, few if any dental cavities, no crowded teeth, easy childbirths, etc. Most had no doctors because they had no need of them. The elderly people were still very active and healthy even at advanced ages.

In addition, Price marveled at their cheerful disposition (despite harsh living conditions) and lack of any mental disorders or depression.

Admittedly, it is a small sample, only 14 groups of people. But they all had good mental and physical health in common, and I think it's worth learning what made these people unique.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
The book is online for free:
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib.../pricetoc.html

Isolated and modernized Australian Aborigines
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib...e/price10.html

Just scroll throught the chapters and look at the pictures if you don't want to read it. It is truly amazing. About the health problems--In the Massai (African tribe) group, I read that someone did autopsies and found no heart disease and they had other markers for cardiovascular health. (If anyone knows where that info is please post!) They ate mostly milk meat and blood. So, if meat causes all these health problems, why were these people so healthy?http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib...ce/price9.html

I bet that the benefits can be laid on the activity level more than anything else. There's a good reason we like sweet and fatty foods - we are adapted for a lifestyle where we burn off those calories, not a lifestyle where the most active among us barely get enough exercise.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
I bet that the benefits can be laid on the activity level more than anything else. There's a good reason we like sweet and fatty foods - we are adapted for a lifestyle where we burn off those calories, not a lifestyle where the most active among us barely get enough exercise.

My take on that is that their healthy diets made them want to be active, and they enjoyed it. These groups clearly had a sense of _joie de vivre_.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Ok, so I did some mental calculations while nursing my daughter down for her nap. On a day that I am happy with what the family all ate, this is what our diet looks like, mostly organic, local and some homegrown:

DH- (Postal carrier-walks 10-15 miles on a work day. Muscular/trim body type, maintaining weight with this. Drinks at least 120 ounces of water)

Breakfast: 1 cup oatmeal with raisins, sunflower seeds and molasses

Snacks- 4 pieces of fresh fruit

Lunch- 4 slices of whole grain bread, 1/4-1/2 cup of organic peanut butter, home made organic jam or honey

2 cups of diluted fruit juice with added electrolytes

Dinner- 2-3 servings of vegetables, 2 servings of beans or tofu, 2-3 servings of rice, quinoa, or whole grain pasta. 1-2 servings of yogurt or cheese.

Dessert (after DD is asleep)- 1 ounce fair trade organic dark chocolate, or 8 ounces organic frozen yogurt or a homemade cookie or 2 ( I freeze portioned dough and bake them 1-2 at a time)

DD- (2 years, tall and average weight)

morning nursing

breakfast- 1 cup of oatmeal with raisins, sunflower seeds and molasses or maple syrup, (usually eats it all) 4 ounces of low fat milk.

after breakfast, I put out her snack tray, which has 2 compartments of fruit, one of diced organic cheese, one of cubed tofu, one of natural graham crackers spread with PB, one of wholegrain crackers with goat cheese, one of nuts, one of raw vegetables. She has a 12 ounce water bottle that she sips from all day.

a few bites of my salad

naptime nursing

dinner: fried rice- brown rice, finely minced veggies, olive oil and an egg

dessert- plain yogurt and fresh or frozen unsweetened fruit

bedtime nursing

Me- (average housewife activity levels plus either an hour brisk walking or heavy yard work most days. Overweight, but losing. 100 ounces of water a day)

Breakfast- 1 tsp olive oil, 1 tablespoon curry powder, 3 ounces of tofu, 3 ounces spinach, 1/4 onion, handful sliced mushrooms, half a whole wheat pita, 1 serving of seasonal fruit.

Snack- whole grain crackers and hummus

Lunch- 4 cups fresh lettuce (from our garden), half an avocado, half a diced mango, some red onion, 1 tsp oil and a generous splash of balsamic vinegar.

Snack- 2 graham crackers with pbj

Dinner- 3-4 servings veggies, 1 serving protein, 1 serving dairy (sometimes) 2 servings whole grains

Dessert- 1/2 ounce fair trade organic dark chocolate, or 4 ounces organic frozen yogurt or a homemade cookie


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
My take on that is that their healthy diets made them want to be active, and they enjoyed it. These groups clearly had a sense of _joie de vivre_.

We can _want_ to be active all we want in this society, but it's hard to get enough exercise when you spend 8-10 hours a day chained to a desk rather than doing something physically active. According to our chiropractor, the human body functions best when in motion about 12 hours a day.

I also get a glimpse of the satisfaction that comes from growing your own food in my garden. There's a blissful sense of rightness that I get looking at my garden or walking through a farmer's market that grocery stores don't provide. That feeling does wonders for my mental health, and I imagine that it would be even more pronounced in someone who meets more of their own needs through personal work. Holding a basket of fresh picked veggies is a whole lot more profound than holding a piece of paper with little numbers on it. I'm not sure I'm expressing this well, so maybe I'll think on it some more on it and post again.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
We can _want_ to be active all we want in this society, but it's hard to get enough exercise when you spend 8-10 hours a day chained to a desk rather than doing something physically active. According to our chiropractor, the human body functions best when in motion about 12 hours a day.

Well, lots of people may _want_ to be active, but many don't feel well enough to take even a 15 minute walk every day. That's sad.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
Well, lots of people may _want_ to be active, but many don't feel well enough to take even a 15 minute walk every day. That's sad.

You know what, though? You get up and take that 15 minute walk, and it boosts your energy, and you get more done. Activity boosts your energy and elevates your mood. When I stared walking or doing heavy yard work (and by this, I mean mowing the lawn with a 60 year-old reel mower, or clearing the edges of the gardens with hand tools) everyday, I found myself getting more accomplished and having more energy.

When DH was a teacher, he would never have had the energy to come home from work, spend 2 hours double digging the tomato beds, turn the compost, then weed the lettuce, then help with housework, and on about 6 hours of sleep a night. Now that he walks 15 miles everyday, he does. I'm at nowhere near that activity level, but I totally see the correlation with me too.

The thing is, people in less technologically advanced societies don't have the option to be sedentary. You work, and work hard, or you don't eat. It's that simple.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
You know what, though? You get up and take that 15 minute walk, and it boosts your energy, and you get more done. Activity boosts your energy and elevates your mood.

That's not necessarily true. Back at the height of my youth (mid-twenties to mid-thirties), I was eating a high-soy, virtually no meat or dairy diet. I started this to help with my PMS and to be "healthy."

Instead what I got was worsening PMS and depression, even worse menstrual cramps, ovarian cyst, uterine fibroid (these required surgical removal) and endometriosis.

In the further interest of being healthy, I made myself go for walks every day, for at least 1/2 an hour. I felt even more exhausted. I needed to take a nap after work.

Quote:

The thing is, people in less technologically advanced societies don't have the option to be sedentary. You work, and work hard, or you don't eat. It's that simple.
Sounds really painful, the way you put it (although it's probably true). Even so, the people Price studied were cheerfully doing the hard work. I doubt I could do that, and I certainly couldn't have done it on my previous diet.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Chicharronita--feel free to PM me if you want more information about salicylates or the Failsafe diet.

One popular food I forgot to mention that is very high in salicylates...honey


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
Chicharronita--feel free to PM me if you want more information about salicylates or the Failsafe diet.

Thanks! I just got done printing a bunch of discouraging info.

Quote:

One popular food I forgot to mention that is very high in salicylates...honey








<puts fingers in ears> La, la, la, la, la, I can't hear you!


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
Thanks! I just got done printing a bunch of discouraging info.

<puts fingers in ears> La, la, la, la, la, I can't hear you!

I so hear you...life would be so much easier if I'd never heard about salicylates!


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
...In the further interest of being healthy, I made myself go for walks every day, for at least 1/2 an hour. I felt even more exhausted. I needed to take a nap after work.

I'm not discounting the possibility that some people are sensitive to soy (or other foods) ... I can't eat wheat during my menstrual period. People have different dietary needs and what one person thrives on, another might not. But for an average person without dietary intolerances or abnormally low iron absorbtion (for example) it is a different matter.

Quote:

Sounds really painful, the way you put it (although it's probably true). Even so, the people Price studied were cheerfully doing the hard work. I doubt I could do that, and I certainly couldn't have done it on my previous diet.
Here's a fact that you have to consider. Hard work, when it is getting you food, shelter and clothing, directly and immediately, is IMMENSELY satisfying. We could very easily get any of the food in our garden from a grocery store, a farmer's market or a CSA, but we grow it our self, and it is hard work, because it is satisfying. Imagine the feeling of standing up from thinning a row of carrots, looking at the wheat that is ripening, seeing the chickens in the tractor picking at the bugs, a clothesline full of handmade clothes drying in the sun, with a pot of homegrown stew on the stove and a pantry full of the things that you have grown and put up. I get a glimpse of that feeling, and it makes me happy to get up in the morning and start working. Working out at a gym or just taking a walk for the sake of exercise does not have nearly the same effect as bicycling to work every day does. Yeah, the first time I did the 2 mile ride to my office (weighing nearly 400 pounds) I thought I was gonna die! But that warm gooey feeling of getting there under my own power was amazing. I lost over 125 pounds in that year, (then got pregnant







)

What I'm trying to say is that are major NON-DIETARY factors that are not being considered in this theory.

I'm not a fanatical vegetarian, even though I'm mostly vegan. I feel that leather shoes are superior to and more sustainable than alternatives, so I wear them. I don't think there's anything really wrong with eating meat once in a while (I don't like the stuff, myself), and I think a little bit of eggs and dairy are pretty harmless. But the earth just can't handle animal based meals for an everyday thing. Certainly not for an every meal thing.


----------



## melissa17s (Aug 3, 2004)

Catnip, I totally agree about the physical activity. I ride my bike during warmer weather, and feel so much better than during the snowy months. Also, your body assimulates vitamins and minerals better when you are exercising. You can not absorb as much calcium if you are sedentary because you need a chemical reaction that only occurs with active muscles.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Price presents a lot of evidence that retinol was a major factor in mineral absorbsion. Retinol is only found in animal products and it is estimated that native people's took in about 50,000 IU/ day. In light of his studies and observations, excercise would seem like a less important factor in mineral utilization than retinol. I can agree there are many factors at work, but I think that nutrition is one of major signifigance. Especially since he found that once people switched to modern foods they had apparent degeneration.

If someone can find this also...I remember reading that Price set out thinking that a vegetarian diet was the healthiest then came to the conclusion later that it was not necessary for optimal health.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I am not all over WP, but today I worked my garden, and as I did so, the sweat was pouring off me. At one point, I though "Wow. It would be so much easier to shop". But now, at the end of the day, I have fed and cared for 20 hens, and put in a whole garden (raised beds-- which meant dragging dirt all over).

And while I still needed years of orthodontia







, the whole deal of growing your own food and eggs in an organic, healthy way is incredibly satisfying.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
What I'm trying to say is that are major NON-DIETARY factors that are not being considered in this theory.

It's true, there's something to be said for living in a small community where the soil is rich and you must eat only food that's grown there. However, as far as diet is concerned, Price did find that there were things in common between all 14 groups.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
If someone can find this also...I remember reading that Price set out thinking that a vegetarian diet was the healthiest then came to the conclusion later that it was not necessary for optimal health.

I don't know if this is exactly what you're looking for:

"As yet I have not found a single group of primitive racial stock which was building and maintaining excellent bodies by living entirely on plant foods. I have found in many parts of the world most devout representatives of modern ethical systems advocating the restriction of foods to the vegetable products. In every instance where the groups involved had been long under this teaching, I found evidence of degeneration in the form of dental caries, and in the new generation in the form of abnormal dental arches to an extent very much higher than in the primitive groups who were not under this influence."

From chapter 15, "Characteristics of primitive and modernized dietaries"

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_lib...e/price15.html


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

I was looking for that and another writing. Maybe it was in one of his letters to his nieces. I think it is interesting that we find there are groups that are healthy on diets where meat/animal products played a major role and then decide it must be something else like excercise, that is making them healthy.


----------



## athansor (Feb 9, 2005)

I read through some of the book (although I'm a vegetarian on ethical grounds, so I don't see myself being converted). It seems that most of his indications of health was from visual observation, discussion of cancer rates with area doctors and dental observation.
Are teeth that good of an indicator of things like heart disease and cancer? Do good teeth = good health ?
Also, how does the scientific community view the chapter on physical, mental and moral deterioration? Is that considered outdated?


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
I was looking for that and another writing. Maybe it was in one of his letters to his nieces.

I have a feeling there's something else. Hopefully someone else will chime in.

Quote:

I think it is interesting that we find there are groups that are healthy on diets where meat/animal products played a major role and then decide it must be something else like excercise, that is making them healthy.
This is anecdotal, but I have a close friend who is in the construction industry. He has been in it for twenty years, and goes to between 6 and 10 different sites every year. He says that in all that time, he has only known ONE vegetarian (no vegans).

The lunch wagons that come to the sites all have meat-laden menus; by the time they get to the more remote job locations, they are often out of the meat items to the consternation of the workers.

He says he's never seen anyone bring a lunch that didn't have meat in it, and he himself would never consider taking it out of his diet because a meat-based meal is so much more satisfying when doing that type of work. During the times he's not working, he does reduce consumption, though, since he's not as hungry.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

not ture that it's more statisfying. DH has worked on sites like that on a veg*n meal and also with eatting meat. the latter leaves him weighed down and feeling like he's dragging by the end of the day. the first helps him to remain focused and on his toes. there are also vegan body builders and many veg*n athletes who switched to a veg*n diet because they were able to burn off the light food fasters and not be weighed down. both are satisying but veg*n leaves you able to function smoother without a doubt at least in my and other's lives. DH turned his meat lovin' friend onto eatting veg*n while working with heavy lifting and in the desert sun for this very reason.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
I was looking for that and another writing. Maybe it was in one of his letters to his nieces. I think it is interesting that we find there are groups that are healthy on diets where meat/animal products played a major role and then decide it must be something else like excercise, that is making them healthy.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

i dreamt about this thread all night last night!









i'm not second guessing the *one* study of native peoples that was found to be healthy on a meat diet by saying 'oh, it must be the exercise!'. i am, however, doubting they got the real look over that they can today. it's an old study and i'd like to see one done nowadays with meat eating peoples because the ones i have discredit the theory. everything i have read trying to disprove a plant based diet (and trust me, i wanted to disprove it. i'm the type that likes my steak still mooing and my chicken any which was as long as i'm eating a lot of it) just didn't hold up to the studies upon studies naming it as the best for optimum health. do i think that eating a meat centered diet is going to kill you? hmmm... not always. not most of the time. do i think you can be healthy and eat a meat centered diet? yes. but i don't think you can achieve the optimum health you can as with a plant based diet.

i also think there is more to it than just diet although diet is an important part.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
I was looking for that and another writing. Maybe it was in one of his letters to his nieces. I think it is interesting that we find there are groups that are healthy on diets where meat/animal products played a major role and then decide it must be something else like excercise, that is making them healthy.

Ok, two major points...

What I'm saying here that there are other major factors, ones that also correlate across the study groups that are likely to affect the results. They may not be the only factor, but they are significant.

Also, I think the theoretical benefits for individuals is far outweighed by the potential damage that heavy meat consumption is doing to the environment. Healthy bodies are well and good, but they aren't going to do us too much good when a freak hurricane caused by global warming comes into Sacramento, knocks down the levees and drowns us all. Yes, small scale pastured meat is sustainable, but there isn't enough land to feed 3 million people in the Sacramento diets that are based around sustainably raised meat. Add 10 million in the Bay Area and 20 million in LA, and, if you they all want to eat meat everyday, you are looking at needing feedlots, which I think we all agree are not even remotely good for anyone.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

the enviornment is a HUGE factor in why DH and i feel a plant based diet is best. that and the starving people's of the world that we could feed with the resources we use to feed our animals.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
Do good teeth = good health ?

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


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
In a nutshell, yes. Take a look at the pictures taken of the people, teeth, and skulls.









this thread weirds me out! i was just telling Dh we need to get his teeth fixed. we came from homes that all of us could agree sucked when it came to proper nutrition and hygine. seriously, this thread is on my mind even in my dreams. last night i dreamt you and i were having a face to face conversation over coffee in a garden Chicharronita.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
not ture that it's more statisfying. DH has worked on sites like that on a veg*n meal and also with eatting meat. the latter leaves him weighed down and feeling like he's dragging by the end of the day.

I'm sorry, I don't recall if your dh works in a physically-intensive industry like construction. These men are swinging hammers and carrying heavy materials all day long. It doesn't appear that they feel weighed down from eating meat after such physical exertion, but I'm sure there are some that may have digestive issues or can't physically handle eating as much meat as the biggest eaters.

Quote:

there are also vegan body builders and many veg*n athletes who switched to a veg*n diet because they were able to burn off the light food fasters and not be weighed down.
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.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
Ok, two major points...

What I'm saying here that there are other major factors, ones that also correlate across the study groups that are likely to affect the results. They may not be the only factor, but they are significant.

You have to read the book to understand the amount of information Price gathered about these people's diet. And keep in mind that he analyzed the ACTUAL content of the food they were eating, not relying on some food database table from the U.S.D.A. (like what's done now in nutrition studies).

Quote:

Healthy bodies are well and good, but they aren't going to do us too much good when a freak hurricane caused by global warming comes into Sacramento, knocks down the levees and drowns us all.
This is true, but should we accept an inferior diet just because of what may happen in the future? I think we should still try to get people to abandon eating factory-farmed animals in favor of pastured ones.

Did anyone read the recent "green" issue of _Vanity Fair_? It was amazing. I sure wish I could afford one of those electric sports cars.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
I'm sorry, I don't recall if your dh works in a physically-intensive industry like construction. These men are swinging hammers and carrying heavy materials all day long.

he did the pre wiring for homes during construction which includes swinging hammers, picking up and hauling bundles of wire (which is actually heavier than i can lift. never thought that until he brought some home in the truck), climbing up and down ladders and housing frames with said materials and all in the desert sun and heat. now he builds cabinetry but still does the pre wiring when they need an extra hand. which is usually in the summer, so it sucks to be him.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
seriously, this thread is on my mind even in my dreams. last night i dreamt you and i were having a face to face conversation over coffee in a garden Chicharronita.

Sounds nice!







I need to have some breakfast and coffee now. See you guys later.


----------



## freespirited (Jun 14, 2005)

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 (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:

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 (Jul 15, 2006)

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 (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


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 (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


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 (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


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 (Jun 7, 2005)

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 (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


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 (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


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 (Jun 7, 2005)

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 (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:


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 (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


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 (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


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 (Feb 9, 2005)

Quote:


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 (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


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 (Nov 14, 2002)

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 (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 (Sep 23, 2004)

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 (Jun 7, 2005)

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 (Jul 26, 2004)

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.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
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.

Ok, you were trying to prove that WAP's research was OK even though it was old because Einstien's research was still valid. Jumping on to your (shaky) analogy, I pointed out that some of Einstein's theories have been debunked by modern research, as has much of WAP's theories. Your analogy, not mine.

Quote:

Many people do not eat their dairy animals. They breed the dairy cow every year for milk and eat the steers.
What do you think happens to a dairy cow whose milk production falls off (at about 8 years old or so)? They get pastured until they die of old age and then are given a decent burial?

Quote:

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
Right, but you admit you have abnormal absorbtion issues? Epileptics do best on a high saturated fat diet. That doesn't mean it is safe for the rest of us. Celiacs can't eat gluten. That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't.

*Aven,* See, I, personally, don't have a problem with someone eating a steak once in a while. I acknowledge, unlike many non-vegan veggies, that someone's gotta have a steak once in a while if I'm gonna eat my beloved cheese (grassfed, local, lowfat organic jack from the farmer's market, and oh man is it yum). I don't *like* meat, anyway. I don't think for someone to have meat a couple of times a month is a huge problem, unless, like me, they have a really profound family history of colon cancer, which not eating meat can REALLY reduce your risk for. My brother is a flexitarian- eats organic grassfed beef on his birthday and at the winter solstice, and that's it. I think that's cool. I can't do that. One month off meat, and I start getting sick when I eat it.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

I must say that I don't see anything wrong with eating an animal that is going to die from old age. Why waste it? When my hens die, they wont be too tasty, but they won't be bad stewed for a day in the crock pot.

I am not saying that flippantly. I honestly do not see a problem with utilizing an entire animal, and sending a word of thanks to the heavens. If a person dies in the woods and nobody hears him die, the bears will eat it. I don't have a problem with that.

Why waste something perfectly useable?


----------



## jessicaSAR (Mar 14, 2004)

I have been reading this thread for 12 pages and here is where I get stuck. I was an ethical veg'n for 16 years (vegan for part of that). I am now a TF omni for all the health reasons that have been discussed before (I should point out that the depression, fatigue, and mineral deficiencies did not show up until after more than a decade of being veg'n, and 6 years of pregnancy and nursing)

I hear the environmental argument about the sustainability of meat consumption all the time. But, I do not live in the lovely temperate climate of California. I can easily be veg'n during the summer months, but in order to get the nutrients my body clearly needs on a veg'n diet (and I am not sure that is even possible for me personally), I would need to consume very large amounts of fruits, veg, nuts and seeds that are just not locally available for much of the year. As I walk around Whole Foods, I think quite a bit about the environmental impact of consuming large amounts of foods shipped in from California and South America for seven or more months of the year.

In other words, isn't it more environmentally sustainable for my family to eat locally? We consume less than one cow, about half a pig and perhaps 20 chickens over the course of the year. These animals are all raised locally and sustainably. We preserve plant foods all summer long, canning and freezing for the winter, but we would be hard pressed to maintain a healthy diet on only these foods during the winter months.

Another thing that always strikes me about WP's work is how simple so many of the apparently healthy traditional diets were. I remember a thread a few months back about how it was optimal to eat at least 35 or so different foods a day. That, to me, seems only possible with the globalization of food distribution. Isn't it more environmentally sustainable to eat a simple diet appropriate to the region in which you live? So veganism may be great if you live in California, but it is not quite so easy in the middle of a New England winter.


----------



## AJP (Apr 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *catnip* 
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?

As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think the mountains of meat produced by the factory farm system could be entirely replaced by only pastured meat products. As a society, I think our relationship with food needs to change in order to be sustainable, which IMO would probably include less volume of meat consumption for most people, and less waste on the consumer's end (which would require more respect for the food and its source). It probably isn't possible to simply switch out the same volume of pastured animal food consumption for the current level of the factory-farmed versions.

I practice the saying "Be the change you wish to see in the world" by the way I feed my family.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessicaSAR* 
I have been reading this thread for 12 pages and here is where I get stuck. I was an ethical veg'n for 16 years (vegan for part of that). I am now a TF omni for all the health reasons that have been discussed before (I should point out that the depression, fatigue, and mineral deficiencies did not show up until after more than a decade of being veg'n, and 6 years of pregnancy and nursing)

I hear the environmental argument about the sustainability of meat consumption all the time. But, I do not live in the lovely temperate climate of California. I can easily be veg'n during the summer months, but in order to get the nutrients my body clearly needs on a veg'n diet (and I am not sure that is even possible for me personally), I would need to consume very large amounts of fruits, veg, nuts and seeds that are just not locally available for much of the year. As I walk around Whole Foods, I think quite a bit about the environmental impact of consuming large amounts of foods shipped in from California and South America for seven or more months of the year.

In other words, isn't it more environmentally sustainable for my family to eat locally? We consume less than one cow, about half a pig and perhaps 20 chickens over the course of the year. These animals are all raised locally and sustainably. We preserve plant foods all summer long, canning and freezing for the winter, but we would be hard pressed to maintain a healthy diet on only these foods during the winter months.

Another thing that always strikes me about WP's work is how simple so many of the apparently healthy traditional diets were. I remember a thread a few months back about how it was optimal to eat at least 35 or so different foods a day. That, to me, seems only possible with the globalization of food distribution. Isn't it more environmentally sustainable to eat a simple diet appropriate to the region in which you live? So veganism may be great if you live in California, but it is not quite so easy in the middle of a New England winter.

I am supposed to be gardening, but I am beat and sitting here drinking a class of wine (from RI, and I live in MA, so I don't feel guilty). I have a lot of thoughts like this on a near daily basis. I totally get what you are asking... and would love to talk more about this!

It makes so little sense for me to be buying lettuce shipped from CA, or Kiwi from New Zealand when I live in MA. I remember that thread on 35 different foods and I do not buy it at all. We can't sustain that sort of thing for all people all over the world. Maybe in August, but perhpas not in February in cold climates. I do not think we need all the food we think we need.

I don't see this as a simple issue. Vegan lifestyle - Sustainable, Omni lifestyle, Unsustainable. There are too many factors which come into play. If I have to have so much food shipped to me 52 weeks of the year, is that a good use of resources? Or tofu packaged in layers of plastic...is that good for the environment? Isn't buying local food (veg or omni) from sustainable people (an ever growing market) better? We need to rely less on supermarkets, even Whole Foods (which honesly, doesn't have the politics it used to have, so I feel no need whatsoever to support them over my local markets), and more on ourselves. People can grow food in pots on balconies--and I know someone in Manhattan with 3 laying hens that live on a NYC rooftop, fi).

I need to go, and I hope I don't have more than the usual number of typos, but this is a very important topic and I wanted to start talking about it.


----------



## jessicaSAR (Mar 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
I don't see this as a simple issue. Vegan lifestyle - Sustainable, Omni lifestyle, Unsustainable. There are too many factors which come into play.

I completely agree. I often see the argument that omnis care first about health, but that veganism is an ethical position. Veganism assumes a particular ethical stance on the treatment of animals, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the most environmentally sustainable position. And, that animal rights perspective makes it hard to reconcile veganism with a more regional or local approach to eating (how can ethical vegans support the consumption of fish or seal in native Alaskan societies if their philosophy is based on animal rights)

While some of Nina Plankk's article is a bit of a stretch, the basic point, that a vegan society has not existed, may have to do with the availability of foods and the nutritional needs of most persons. I do think it is quite a stretch to meet the nutritional needs of most persons on a vegan diet, especially with increasing nutritional needs due to soil depletion and environmental toxins and stess, and to do so would require food to be shipped for most of the year. So if most persons cannot maintain adequate health on a vegan diet, how is advocating such a diet worldwide a sustainable ethical position.

So I guess what I am saying with all this rambling is that there are a variety of what could be considered important ethical positions in this debate. I do think health is important, as well as humane treatment of animals, respect for the natural and animal worlds (and this includes respect for the real nutritional needs of growing human infants), environmental sustainability etc...And, I think a strict vegan philosophy does not allow for the balancing of these ethical principles. The couple in the article clearly suffered from a complete ignorance about the nutritional needs of an infant, but the philosophy of veganism may also have set them up to fail in this particular fashion because it told them that the ethical principle of not consuming animal products trumps all other ethical concerns (ie, meeting the nutritional needs of their infant). In that sense, I don't think veganism is a flexible enough philosophy to be healthy or sustainable in the long term.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

the ramifications of eating meat in this world is too great to me. forget the health issues. we'll just put those aside for a minute and the Animal Rights reasons (which i, personally, am not driven by). i understand what is being said here. the whole shipping produce and grain argument does factor in and make a lot of sense. however- it is worse to eat meat and animal products to me and this is why...
the resources we use to breed and maintain animals are great. with what we are using to feed these animals alone could feed thousands of people world wide. the cost of feeding, breeding, and maintaining these animals could aid the less fortunate people's of the world. i know we can debate the ethics when it comes to animals but i can't when it comes to human beings. having a pear shipped to you from across the country is the lesser of two evils, IMO. a veg*n diet is a safe, healthy, nutritious diet that is sustainable. you could feed thousands more on a veg*n diet then you could on an omni. society realizing this and going veg would be great! but even just cutting down drastically on meat- which we don't need in our diets to live full lives or even for optimal health and i haven't seen any convincing up to date (wouldn't be convinced by a veg leaning one that old either) study that debunks this as of yet. still waiting- could go a long way too. i'd like to see people around the world being fed rather than a cow fattened up to produce gallons of milk and then be run off to the slaughter house to make me that yummy Big Mac. just think of the cost for that one cow and how many people that mama could feed if she wasn't bred in the first place. it's worth it to me. having to watch what my family eats and double up on fruits and veggies and grains etc to make sure our diets are balanced and we're getting enough nutrients is way worth it to me. the added benefit of a healthier life is just extra.


----------



## jessicaSAR (Mar 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
the resources we use to breed and maintain animals are great. with what we are using to feed these animals alone could feed thousands of people world wide. the cost of feeding, breeding, and maintaining these animals could aid the less fortunate people's of the world. i know we can debate the ethics when it comes to animals but i can't when it comes to human beings. having a pear shipped to you from across the country is the lesser of two evils, IMO. a veg*n diet is a safe, healthy, nutritious diet that is sustainable. you could feed thousands more on a veg*n diet then you could on an omni. society realizing this and going veg would be great! but even just cutting down drastically on meat- which we don't need in our diets to live full lives or even for optimal health and i haven't seen any convincing up to date (wouldn't be convinced by a veg leaning one that old either) study that debunks this as of yet. still waiting- could go a long way too. i'd like to see people around the world being fed rather than a cow fattened up to produce gallons of milk and then be run off to the slaughter house to make me that yummy Big Mac. just think of the cost for that one cow and how many people that mama could feed if she wasn't bred in the first place. it's worth it to me. having to watch what my family eats and double up on fruits and veggies and grains etc to make sure our diets are balanced and we're getting enough nutrients is way worth it to me. the added benefit of a healthier life is just extra.









I think there is a great deal of common ground here. Not to speak for anyone else, but I think virtually all of the TF omnis would agree with much of what you say here. The SAD (mass milk and beef production, Big Mac etc) is unhealthy and unsustainable. We can drastically reduce our meat consumption (with the expection of those who have special nutritional needs such as pregnant women, infants and recovering vegans







: ) Don't flame me, just a little humor.

There are other farming models besides the feedlot model that supports the massive corn industry in the USA (smaller scale biodynamic farming for example). There have got to be other ways of thinking about the problem. I don't think is it sustainable to think about the US shipping grain all over the world to feed starving persons. The political/social/economic issues in food production and distribution go way beyond the obscene use of resources in feedlot beef production. IMO, ideally, Africans should be primarily eating food from Africa, Asians from Asia, etc... The poverty in many areas stems from disruptions to traditional systems of food production and distribution that are extremely complicated (industrialization, colonialism, exploitation etc, etc...).

I guess my primary point is that the main issue is not just about eating or not eating meat (unless you are philosophically vegan, and this is why I don't think philosophical veganism is a sustainable philosophy), but rather it is about finding realistic economies of scale that can provide reasonably healthy, predominately local diets for persons across the globe. And that solution will, no doubt, require some meat consumption, but in a fashion that is very different from the current SAD model.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Exactly! We need to stop thinking that anyone here is talking about factory farming or the SAD -- I think all of the omnis here are talking about local food production. To depend 100% on markets for my food, with all the packaging and fossil fuel waste, not to mention the abuse of our soil with corn farming & cattle feedlots is not what I am about. We are talking about a sustainable, mostly local, and not meat-based, omni diet. I can tell you that my hens, (just as a small example) waste nothing, and pollute nothing. In return for the pleasure of caring for them, we get a daily sorce of fresh, sustainable protein that our bodies can utilize well.

I live on a stretch of coastal land that many people (gentlemen farmers with day jobs) are using in the most thoughtful way. The CSA peeps are down the street. It's exciting be around people thinking this way. Its not a matter of SAD Vs Vegan. I understand not wanting to eat animals, so I know this model doesn't work for vegans, but there is a pretty big middle ground of earth-minded people trying to think about how to feed a world in ways that are sustainable and ecological.

One of my first steps is growing what I can, buying locally what I can, and saying no as much as I can to a constant supply of food shipped to me (in layers of plastic) from far away. Humans have been importing & exporting for thousands of years-- that sharing is wonderful, but not the way we currently do it- and not the way people want the same fresh tomato 52 weeks out of every year, and whatever else they feel like having, no matter what it takes to get it to them.

Change is happening.

One of my favorite sites is www.slowfood.com


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
the resources we use to breed and maintain animals are great. with what we are using to feed these animals alone could feed thousands of people world wide.

Yet, when organizations seek to help people in many third world countries feed themselves, they bring them goats and chickens, not seeds. Why? Because food crops are delicate. Humans have forcefully evolved them for thousands of years to only subsist in perfect soil and environmental conditions, and they are labor intensive. Further, most don't store easily (except grains and beans, which are calorie rich but far from nutritionally complete and not tolerated by many people; even those can become moldy or infested with insects.)

Most livestock can subsist on marginal land that humans can't farm. Brush that can grow on land that isn't arable for food crops can feed a goat, which can then provide milk, a kid for meat, and gallons of poop to help nourish that marginal land and hopefully make it arable some year in the future. That hardy brush, which is unusable to humans, brings nutrients and water up to the surface through it's roots. That nutrition is then returned to the topsoil in the form of manure. Land sustainably managed on livestock does not suffer erosion. You can maintain an animal like a sheep or a goat with minimal labor, as insurance in case your vegetable food crops fail, and take advantage of that manure thing in the meanwhile. With chickens, you can maintain them and take advantage of their bug-eating abilities, gather a few eggs, and again know that you can slaughter them if your vegetable crops fail or your stores become damaged. The extra advantage of chickens is, they have such a short period of gestation and growth, you can breed your small keeper flock into a larger meat flock in the course of a couple months if needed.

By comparison, foodcropping an equal number of calories in produce involves the clearing of land and it's resultant erosion. The roots of annual foodcrops are not as deep as perennial shrubs and native weeds, so they don't draw up the minerals from deep under the soil. They are heavy users of soil nutrition, so if you don't have livestock to provide manure you have to rely on other sources (petroleum?) No matter how you cut it, they are far more labor intensive per calorie. Finally, most produce is only available during a limited time of the year. The most nutritious fruits and vegetables do not store reliably for winter without energy intensive preservation techniques (canning or freezing). You can sun dry, but that's risky - you risk mold, insect infestation, rotting. You risk a solid week of rain the day you set up to dehydrate your tomatoes. Fermentation is a possibility, but it involves a lot of salt which isn't always readily available far from the ocean. And again, you risk the ferment becoming contaminated.

When I participated in the 30 day raw challenge recently, what bothered me the most was how difficult it was to eat primarily locally. In late April and early May here in Pennsylvania, the only local foods raw foods that are available are meat and milk, a few early greens, and if I'd had any storage crops leftover I might have had potatoes and carrots. I ate plenty of local milk during that month, and all the local greens I could buy (greenhouse greens; since we'd had a late cold snap, my own garden greens weren't nearly ready as they'd been at that time last year.) I had some local strawberries left in the freezer from last year, which provided for my smoothies. But by and large, I had to rely on imported foods. And I do think the imported food issue is key. The ability to import these foods is not sustainable. It is not going to be an option in a decade or so. We need to learn to eat locally produced foods, and for much of the country, that means meat and milk. Again, reliable food preservation techniques are also energy intensive. That's just not sustainable. There's a reason why the few vegetarian cultures that exist are in equatorial regions where produce is available year round. Folks in Europe just couldn't sustain that kind of a diet historically.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

but if you are unable to sustain enough foods (not meat) for yourself you're not going to be able to sustain enough for the animals, at least not as many animals as would be needed.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

UUMom and Jessica, i see where you both are coming from and i agree for the most part. this debate has gone on and on so i'll just leave it at agreeing for once.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

redundant post. lol Sorry about that!


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

I think the statement "vegan = sustainable, omni = unsustainable" is not accurate. I think "vegan = sustainable, modern SAD omni = unsustainable" is accurate.

One of the things that changed my mind about meat consumption was from Michael Pollan's book. Here's a paraphrase of his description of one farm (but it was a couple of months ago that I read it, so I apologize in advance if I'm not relaying it correctly):

There is a farm that grows grapes and turkeys. The grapes attract all the bugs that the turkeys like best, and the turkeys eat the bugs so there's no need for pesticides. The turkeys scratch around at the base of the grape vines, keeping the ground somewhat aerated. Apparently turkeys and grapes are a great combination. While it's true that you grow less grapes per acre when you have to fit turkeys in there too, and you raise fewer turkeys per acre when you have to fit the grapes in too... but it's only about 25% less/fewer, not 50% less, so you end up with more food altogether in the end. (If you raise 75% of the turkeys and grow 75% of the grapes, all on the original number of acres, you end up with 50% more food than if you had just grown turkeys or just grown grapes.) Quite sustainable, and efficient, I'd say.

When I find a farm that I believe is growing its produce and raising its animals in a sustainable way, then I like to support that farm.

WE ALL AGREE THAT FACTORY FARMING IS A DISASTER.

I was a vegetarian for 15 years, because everything I had ever read about food discussed what a disaster eating meat is. When I realized that everything I had ever read was discussing factory farms, and not small, local, sustainable farms, I changed my mind. I found a grassfed beef farm close to me, and we now eat meat 2 times per month. I feel healthier, and I feel that it is sustainable.

Aven


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tboroson* 
Yet, when organizations seek to help people in many third world countries feed themselves, they bring them goats and chickens, not seeds. Why? Because food crops are delicate. Humans have forcefully evolved them for thousands of years to only subsist in perfect soil and environmental conditions, and they are labor intensive. Further, most don't store easily (except grains and beans, which are calorie rich but far from nutritionally complete and not tolerated by many people; even those can become moldy or infested with insects.)

Most livestock can subsist on marginal land that humans can't farm. Brush that can grow on land that isn't arable for food crops can feed a goat, which can then provide milk, a kid for meat, and gallons of poop to help nourish that marginal land and hopefully make it arable some year in the future. That hardy brush, which is unusable to humans, brings nutrients and water up to the surface through it's roots. That nutrition is then returned to the topsoil in the form of manure. Land sustainably managed on livestock does not suffer erosion. You can maintain an animal like a sheep or a goat with minimal labor, as insurance in case your vegetable food crops fail, and take advantage of that manure thing in the meanwhile. With chickens, you can maintain them and take advantage of their bug-eating abilities, gather a few eggs, and again know that you can slaughter them if your vegetable crops fail or your stores become damaged. The extra advantage of chickens is, they have such a short period of gestation and growth, you can breed your small keeper flock into a larger meat flock in the course of a couple months if needed.

By comparison, foodcropping an equal number of calories in produce involves the clearing of land and it's resultant erosion. The roots of annual foodcrops are not as deep as perennial shrubs and native weeds, so they don't draw up the minerals from deep under the soil. They are heavy users of soil nutrition, so if you don't have livestock to provide manure you have to rely on other sources (petroleum?) No matter how you cut it, they are far more labor intensive per calorie. Finally, most produce is only available during a limited time of the year. The most nutritious fruits and vegetables do not store reliably for winter without energy intensive preservation techniques (canning or freezing). You can sun dry, but that's risky - you risk mold, insect infestation, rotting. You risk a solid week of rain the day you set up to dehydrate your tomatoes. Fermentation is a possibility, but it involves a lot of salt which isn't always readily available far from the ocean. And again, you risk the ferment becoming contaminated.

When I participated in the 30 day raw challenge recently, what bothered me the most was how difficult it was to eat primarily locally. In late April and early May here in Pennsylvania, the only local foods raw foods that are available are meat and milk, a few early greens, and if I'd had any storage crops leftover I might have had potatoes and carrots. I ate plenty of local milk during that month, and all the local greens I could buy (greenhouse greens; since we'd had a late cold snap, my own garden greens weren't nearly ready as they'd been at that time last year.) I had some local strawberries left in the freezer from last year, which provided for my smoothies. But by and large, I had to rely on imported foods. And I do think the imported food issue is key. The ability to import these foods is not sustainable. It is not going to be an option in a decade or so. We need to learn to eat locally produced foods, and for much of the country, that means meat and milk. Again, reliable food preservation techniques are also energy intensive. That's just not sustainable. There's a reason why the few vegetarian cultures that exist are in equatorial regions where produce is available year round. Folks in Europe just couldn't sustain that kind of a diet historically.

Wow, What a detailed, thoughtful post. You kinda rock, you know?


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
redundant post. lol Sorry about that!

yes, i understand all that. and i'm not saying at all that we should just go and plant a crop in the deserts of Africa but raher that instead of wasting our resources on maintaining factory farming we should be outsourcing them to countries in need.
with the post you quoted i was going off of having farms and/or animals in desolate areas that can hardly maintain any life. that's a thread ll within itself having to do with the environment. anyways, it would be very difficult to have farming or animals in areas such as that which is where i feel our shipping of resources would come in at least to give time to heal the land/peoples/governments/etc etc
i'm sorry, i am so flipping tired right now, so i doubt i'm making nay sense. to many thoughts all jumbled up in my mind and i'm having a hard time making heads or tails of it. i just love getting a good 3 hours of sleep.







:
i want to clear up that i'm not saying you must be veg in order to be sustainable. a plant based diet is more sustainable but a limited omni diet isn't bad, either. like i have said i'm not a veg*n. i do eat meat a few times a year. i do think it's more than possible to improve things and still have an omni world, i shouldn't have said a veg*n is ideal because i didn't necessarily mean that. in my little world what would be ideal is the meat industry dieing and us living on little meat and animal products based locally, free ranged, organic, etc etc. you know, going to the farmers front door to buy some eggs and chicken.
i do think we're agreeing more than we think. my wording is sucking (sorry







) and i know we come to these threads on the defense because we're so use to a huge drawn out veg vs omni drag out debate. but when you're talking to me, at least, know i'm not really anti omni. i have learned someting from this thread. i came into it with the preconceived notion that all the omni's on it were typical meat for every meal factory farm endorsing omnis. i was wrong. i'm GLAD i was wrong. and i'm even happier we could find some common ground. well, at least i could in my frazzled brain. whether or not you're understanding me or even still reading this butchered post remains to be seen.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

oh poo on you UUMom! you changed your post right as i quoted it.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
oh poo on you UUMom! you changed your post right as i quoted it.









Sorry.







I just said poorly all of what tboronson said well. I figured my post was not the least bit necessary.

--Ithink the statement "vegan = sustainable, omni = unsustainable" is not accurate. I think "vegan = sustainable, modern SAD omni = unsustainable" is accurate.--
Aven--I am still not sure veganism is sustainable for people everywhere. Plant food is dependant on climate, and in our current state of climate change, we may have to use some animal products some places, for some people. I think it's a hugely complicated issue, can't be be neatly be summed up. If there is a drought, and nothing is growing, or there are floods and everything is washed away, even a rodent is going to look pretty good after a time.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

it is complicated. but i think we have the resources now (in some countries, of course not all are the same. i'm meaning the US) to be able to maintain a plantbased diet. but you're right. stuff happens. for the most part, though, i think its doable.


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
Aven--I am still not sure veganism is sustainable for people everywhere. Plant food is dependant on climate, and in our current state of climate change, we may have to use some animal products some places, for some people. I think it's a hugely complicated issue, can't be be neatly be summed up. If there is a drought, and nothing is growing, or there are floods and everything is washed away, even a rodent is going to look pretty good after a time.

My point is this: veganism CAN BE sustainable (depending on where you live), and omnivorism CAN BE sustainable (depending on how you raise your animals). Right, it's very possible to do veganism in a 'bad' way, just as many SADers do omnivorism in a 'bad' way. However, many American vegans are closer to living in a sustainable way than many American omnivores are, and I want them to get credit for that.

Aven


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
it is complicated. but i think we have the resources now (in some countries, of course not all are the same. i'm meaning the US) to be able to maintain a plantbased diet. but you're right. stuff happens. for the most part, though, i think its doable.

Yet I am not convinced a 100% vegan diet is the right diet for all people, at every stage of their development and life. Humans have varrying needs.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *avendesora* 
My point is this: veganism CAN BE sustainable (depending on where you live), and omnivorism CAN BE sustainable (depending on how you raise your animals). Right, it's very possible to do veganism in a 'bad' way, just as many SADers do omnivorism in a 'bad' way. However, many American vegans are closer to living in a sustainable way than many American omnivores are, and I want them to get credit for that.

Aven

Yes, I agree with you.

I guess sustainable Vs and optimal for all is where I got conflicted.


----------



## holyhelianthus (Jul 15, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UUMom* 
Yet I am not convinced a 100% vegan diet is the right diet for all people, at every stage of their development and life. Humans have varrying needs.

DH and i were talking about this. we were tossing around the thought that the individuals ideal diet might be based on their ethnic blueprint, if that makes sense.


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessicaSAR* 
There are other farming models besides the feedlot model that supports the massive corn industry in the USA (smaller scale biodynamic farming for example). There have got to be other ways of thinking about the problem. I don't think is it sustainable to think about the US shipping grain all over the world to feed starving persons. The political/social/economic issues in food production and distribution go way beyond the obscene use of resources in feedlot beef production. IMO, ideally, Africans should be primarily eating food from Africa, Asians from Asia, etc... The poverty in many areas stems from disruptions to traditional systems of food production and distribution that are extremely complicated (industrialization, colonialism, exploitation etc, etc...)

YES! It doesn't matter to me that America could stop using resources to raise beef and instead use those resources to raise grain that could be shipped to all the poor of the world, because that's not sustainable in the long term, either! Let me rephrase that. It _does_ matter to me, I wish that no one on earth would ever go hungry or suffer any form of poor or malnutrition. _However_, how is it at all ethical to create a system that leaves huge chunks of the world population dependent on food shipped from thousands of miles away? It's _not_ ethical! We need to find ways for people to support their own local populations, however that has to happen. Should we feed those people in the short run? Absolutely. We should not, however, create an entire system that is designed to make them perpetually dependent upon more developed nations. How is that ethical? How is that environmentally friendly? How is that sustainable? It _isn't_....any of those things. It's more ethical than letting people starve, but as a long term solution, it's not the right one.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *magstphil* 
but if you are unable to sustain enough foods (not meat) for yourself you're not going to be able to sustain enough for the animals, at least not as many animals as would be needed.

Maggie, but that's my point - yes, you can. Most livestock can readily eat food that we cannot. They can scramble between rocks and eat the shrubs that grow in their cracks, where we couldn't plant so much as a lettuce. We can't eat brome grass or tumbleweeds. Livestock can. Granted, it can take lots of such marginal space to produce each calorie, but that's space that we couldn't use for vegetable crops no matter what.

Even outside of such harsh, marginal lands, as someone noted above the most productive farms grow both animals *and* produce. They work very symbiotically. Think about it: that's what nature does. You don't see forests without animals, or large populations of animals living without plants. The most sustainable farms attempt to mimic nature in that regard.

I think the definition of "sustainable diet" is, a diet consisting almost entirely of food that can be produced and stored on local land and with local resources without destroying those local resources. Transporting food is an environmental nightmare. IMO, the only two food products that everyone needs that can't be produced everywhere are tea and chocolate







So, assuming that 99% of your diet should be local, a "sustainable" diet will vary greatly from southern California to New England - or China or Saharan Africa or Greenland. In much of the US, you'd be hard pressed to get any significant amount of fat into your diet on a vegan diet. Nuts, maybe some flax seeds. You can't grow avocados or coconuts in New Hampshire. Or even Virginia.

Once again, I'm not saying a vegan diet isn't right for any person in any place. I'm not saying it's never sustainable. Clearly, if you live in a place where adequate produce is, well, produced year round, that's easy enough. But I do honestly believe that in other places, farming for animal food is more sustainable than importing or attempting to preserve enough vegetable products for winter use; not to mention risking the vagaries of climate to entrust that we'd even have produce for the *summer*.

I think we can go rounds and rounds about how much meat we're "meant" to eat in that circumstance. I don't think we'll ever answer that question. It will relate to the capacities of the local environment, and the particular person's needs. Thus it will probably vary greatly - both between two people in the same neighborhood, and between two people on opposite corners of the country. I don't think that it's logical or productive for someone in Hawaii to consider herself more sustainable or environmentally ethical than someone in Maine because the latter eats more meat.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Wow, this is a great discussion! It's fabulous to read what you all have to say.


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.

But you're clearly basing this opinion on what has worked for _you_. I *cannot* be healthy eating meat only once or twice a month. It seems there's no point in me attempting to convince anyone who is sure that ALL human beings can survive on one specific dietary plan, but it's simply true. I cannot survive on that little meat without suffering health problems. I have _major_ blood sugar issues when I don't eat meat. Beans are not a good protein source for me at all. Regardless of what other plant foods I eat them with, they leave me feeling lightheaded, sweaty and confused within an hour if I don't eat some animal protein. Nuts do the same, exact thing and I'm sensitive to almonds and pecans anyway (almonds give me a rash on my face and pecans make my mouth burn like hell). Seeds aren't much better. I think you have been very reasonable throughout this thread, so I hope you don't feel like I'm jumping in and getting nitpicky, but I really, really don't understand it when anyone decides that what has worked for them is what will automatically work for everyone. It's not true. It's never true - about any topic!

I definitely think many (maybe most) omnis eat too much animal protein. I can agree with that. I cannot, OTOH, agree that everyone needs to limit it to less than 3 times a month, just because _you_ feel comfortable with that. If I did that, I would be ill, all the opinions of others aside.


----------



## newcastlemama (Jun 7, 2005)

Yes Plummeting. That is my experinece also. When I try and skip meat to save $, my dh will come home and I will be exhausted on the couch. His first question is "Did you skip meat today? It is not worth feeling like this to save money Jennifer!"

My health practioner thinks it might be because I am scandinavian and they eat a lot of game meat and fish. She said I may have higher requirements for the nutrients in these foods than other people.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 
Yes Plummeting. That is my experinece also. When I try and skip meat to save $, my dh will come home and I will be exhausted on the couch. His first question is "Did you skip meat today? It is not worth feeling like this to save money Jennifer!"

My health practioner thinks it might be because I am scandinavian and they eat a lot of game meat and fish. She said I may have higher requirements for the nutrients in these foods than other people.

*groan* That has been my problem lately. DH is out of work again, so we've cut down on the amount of meat we get. I am so tired.


----------



## freespirited (Jun 14, 2005)

This IS a great discussion.

I, too, feel better when I eat eggs and meat (but not dairy, unless cultured, and I feel that when I feel better, I work better and contribute to society more, whether that be by having more energy to educate and engage my children so they will (hopefully) grow up to have more to contribute, or having more energy to cook from scratch which helps the planet as a whole, etc. IOW, if a veg diet leaves me feeling flat, am I to suffer in the name of the greater good and continue eating such a diet? I think not. Take Inuits. They are accustomed to a diet of whale meat and fish. I don't think they would feel too great if they switched to a diet of imported vegan foods. As I said before, we are all different and some people need animal foods to feel well. I don't do well on grains, except rice and a few other gluten-free grains. I don't do well with nuts or seeds, except some roasted seeds. I don't do well with dairy. For me, the diet that works best is some meat (all organic and sustainably raised), some eggs, some small amount of beans, rice, and lots of fruits and veggies. I was a vegan for a number of years and that worked for me during that time, but by the time I was in my late 20s, it no longer worked, and it definitely did not work after two pregnancies and breastfeeding. My body asks for some meat in no uncertain terms and responds in kind. My mother was 90% vegetarian for a very long time and ate a ton of soy analogs ala Morningstar Farms and ended up with severe deficiencies, despite eating many veggies as well. She actually was diagnosed with dementia in her 50s. That's another thread, I realize, but my point is, not all foods work for all folks and there is not a one-size-fits-all for diets, whether we are talking about health, politics, sociology, environment, etc. I guess that's why this topic has been argued for so long.

I agree that eating locally is a great idea, and I do so, even though it means being stuck with nothing but lettuce and spinach and radishes for all of April and May. I do buy the occasional imported fruits or veggies that supply some nutrients my local produce is lacking in, but I buy my meats and eggs and bread locally too. I need lots of fats and I don't see a big difference in buying avocados that traveled 3,000 miles and buying locally grown meat grazed on pasture that wasn't deforested or otherwise compromised. And the whole argument about how much of the world we could feed if we were all vegetarians only holds water if the politics of all countries involved were bent considerably, and that ain't gonna happen, unfortunately.


----------



## catnip (Mar 25, 2002)

*rolls eyes* *unsubscribes*


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## PYJam (May 30, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newcastlemama* 

My health practioner thinks it might be because I am scandinavian and they eat a lot of game meat and fish. She said I may have higher requirements for the nutrients in these foods than other people.

And those of us decended from potato and cabbage eaters who get fat if we look twice at chocolate- I think we probably need to get by with less meat and dairy than the typical American diet.









I read this article elsewhere actually and was struck by the "babies are made of....fish oil" statement. I thought, "Wow, that's going to ruffle a lot of feathers!" As an omnivore it hits me more of silly than offensive.

So much of the NYT editorial page is agenda driven, from politics to entertainment. If you read something from them and it offends you, consider the source and do what you can through blogs and bulletin boards and conversations with friends and family to get alternative points of view out there. Newspapers are part of the "dinosauer media" and not as influential as they once were.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PYJam* 
And those of us decended from potato and cabbage eaters who get fat if we look twice at chocolate- I think we probably need to get by with less meat and dairy than the typical American diet.









I read this article elsewhere actually and was struck by the "babies are made of....fish oil" statement. I thought, "Wow, that's going to ruffle a lot of feathers!" As an omnivore it hits me more of silly than offensive.

So much of the NYT editorial page is agenda driven, from politics to entertainment. If you read something from them and it offends you, consider the source and do what you can through blogs and bulletin boards and conversations with friends and family to get alternative points of view out there. Newspapers are part of the "dinosauer media" and not as influential as they once were.









Have you read this whole thread?


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

Hmm.... this thread seems to have headed in the direction of eating for your ethnicity, and eating for what our particular bodies were designed to eat. I have a bit of an issue with that philosophy. While it is useful to be aware of what your body was designed to eat, it's also useful to be aware of the fact that our heritages have evolved over thousands of years, and now that we're having population explosions on our planet, it simply won't be possible to continue as we always have.

Yes, there is some land that can only be used for animals. But if population growth may become a large enough issue that we have to say something to the effect of, "animals may only be raised where nothing else can, because we simply need more food than we've ever needed before, and all other land has to be reserved for human crops."

For me, sustainability outranks my goal of being extremely healthy. (Example: I can be 'healthy enough' without eating imported blueberries in the winter.)

For those of you who are saying that you feel that you have to eat meat on a very regular basis or you feel ill, would you be willing to cut down on meat that someone else wouldn't have to starve?

Another phrasing of the same question: Where would you personally draw the line between your commitment to sustainability, and your commitment to your own health, if the two were to come into conflict?

At what point to we try to fight our biologically designed needs, in favor of the preservation of our earth?

I'm not suggesting that anyone give up on their health entirely, but is there room for compromise?

Aven


----------



## freespirited (Jun 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *avendesora* 
For those of you who are saying that you feel that you have to eat meat on a very regular basis or you feel ill, would you be willing to cut down on meat that someone else wouldn't have to starve?

Another phrasing of the same question: Where would you personally draw the line between your commitment to sustainability, and your commitment to your own health, if the two were to come into conflict?

At what point to we try to fight our biologically designed needs, in favor of the preservation of our earth?

I'm not suggesting that anyone give up on their health entirely, but is there room for compromise?

Aven


Well I support a couple of African kids, hopefully that helps offset some of my meat-eating







. I also only buy organic, locally-grown meat. I try my best not to buy meat from sources that cut down the rainforest. That said, how will my eating local meats affect starving Africans with the political barriers as they are? There also aren't any people starving in the U.S. because of meat-eating here. What I think about more than people starving because of my (I think conscious) food choices is the environmental impact those choices have on the earth. That said, what are the vegetarians doing to tread more lightly on the earth? We are all using way too much plastic, driving our cars too much, buying homes that suck a lot of electricity, buying water in bottles, not using fluorescent lighting, etc. I think it could be argued that those things make a big impact on the preservation of the earth. I do what I can and make sacrifices but I also need to try and meet some of my needs, and unfortunately after trying almost every diet out there, turns out I need a little meat to feel better. I guess where I see myself doing my part is where I only buy sustainably raised meats and eggs. I pay a lot more for that food. I also have cut down on my meat consumption. I am trying to figure out how little I can get away with, and how much meat I might be able to replace with eggs. I have two children and I am very concerned about their future in terms of the environment. I also need to have more energy to keep up with my children and help raise them into good citizens and if I were to go vegan as a sacrifice to the greater good, I would be sacrifing my health, my energy levels and my ability to parent well. I think we could all agree that we would put our family first over the greater good. But I do try to offset my footprints in different ways that do help out the greater good. I don't take for granted the fact that I even get to have the choice as to what I want to eat, but neither am I prepared to be a martyr. I do compromise. What compromises do vegetarians and vegans make? If the diet works for you, is it really a compromise or a sacrifice, as it would be for someone who doesn't feel as well on it? There are childfree people who insist they are doing the world a favor by not adding to the population, but if being childfree was a choice they made for other reasons, then it's not right to take credit for helping out the earth while challenging others' choice to have children.


----------



## jessicaSAR (Mar 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *avendesora* 
Hmm.... this thread seems to have headed in the direction of eating for your ethnicity, and eating for what our particular bodies were designed to eat. I have a bit of an issue with that philosophy. While it is useful to be aware of what your body was designed to eat, it's also useful to be aware of the fact that our heritages have evolved over thousands of years, and now that we're having population explosions on our planet, it simply won't be possible to continue as we always have.

Yes, there is some land that can only be used for animals. But if population growth may become a large enough issue that we have to say something to the effect of, "animals may only be raised where nothing else can, because we simply need more food than we've ever needed before, and all other land has to be reserved for human crops."

For me, sustainability outranks my goal of being extremely healthy. (Example: I can be 'healthy enough' without eating imported blueberries in the winter.)

For those of you who are saying that you feel that you have to eat meat on a very regular basis or you feel ill, would you be willing to cut down on meat that someone else wouldn't have to starve?

Another phrasing of the same question: Where would you personally draw the line between your commitment to sustainability, and your commitment to your own health, if the two were to come into conflict?

At what point to we try to fight our biologically designed needs, in favor of the preservation of our earth?

I'm not suggesting that anyone give up on their health entirely, but is there room for compromise?

Aven

It is not only eating what is appropriate for your body type, but also eating what is appropriate for where you live. I am not sure what role ethnicity plays, but I am pretty confident that people have different nutritional needs for lots of different reasons. I would advocate finding the most sustainable method for meeting those particular needs.

This why we need a paradigm shift when it comes to food production. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that land is either "for animals" or "for plants." Re-read tboroson's excellent posts about symbiotic land use.

What is healthy enough? If you can adequately meet your nutritional needs with an appropriate diet, then you can avoid the overuse of antibiotics and pharmaceuticals that is such a problem in the US. It is interesting to think about how the "medicalization" of health has contributed to disease and illness and dependence. The market for drugs is huge. And the pharmacuetical mindset, combined with political instability, colors the way even well intentioned organizations approach health problems. Take the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for example. They have chosen to focus on immunization rather than food distribution and the provision of clean water. A reliable local food production and distribution system combined with reliable clean water would save many more lives than a truckful of vaccinations and a truckful of cornmeal. So, reducing our reliance on the health industry is just as important a goal.

To be perfectly honest, I feel I am behaving much more responsibly now than I did when I was vegan. Because I was not eating animal products I tended to pat myself on the back and feel confident that I was doing my part, when, in reality, I was not thinking much at all about meat eating and meat production. The truth is, there is not a one-to-one relationship between my eating meat and someone else starving. What will really make a difference is finding alternatives. As I have made this journey back to meat eating over the last 18 months I have researched all the available options. The local farms from which I purchase meat and milk and eggs and vegetables (all grown together, by the way), are trying new models, trying to find a way to do it differently. I am helping to create a market so that these experiments can be sustainable.

Again, I think you are lumping all meat eaters together. The group of TF omnis engaged in this discussion are using meat in a very different way than the SAD. We all agree on the obscenity of the SAD.


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jessicaSAR* 
Again, I think you are lumping all meat eaters together. The group of TF omnis engaged in this discussion are using meat in a very different way than the SAD. We all agree on the obscenity of the SAD.

Please, that is not true (that I am lumping all meat eaters together). I eat meat 2x/month, and it is always pastured/organic, etc. However, the farm where I buy my meat looks like it has very good fields, and they only raise cows (no produce), and I just wonder sometimes about the appropriation of land use. While I absolutely agree with the possibility of symbiotic land use, I haven't found a farm yet that does it.

I think that of course there's much more going on here than just animal use. There was a conversation on NPR yesterday about how much food is going to waste in our country - how much the grocery stores and restaurants throw out. It was quite appalling.

Quote:

What is healthy enough?
I wonder about this too. I would like to believe that it is possible to eat healthfully enough by eating locally - but what would that mean I would have to give up? Blueberries in winter, avocados, bananas at any time. But the 'health experts' are always recommending that we eat more blueberries and avocados! Is there something that would be locally available (except of course, summer blueberries) that would provide those same nutrients?

I have more to say but kids are crying now...

Aven


----------



## athansor (Feb 9, 2005)

It seems this discussion is moving in the (albiet interesting) direction of sustanability vs. health, but is ignoring the fact that unlike the various omnivore eating styles, there is often a moral/ethical component to not eating meat, which goes beyond how it is raised or it's environmental affect. I began eating a vegetarian diet because I didn't feel comfortable with eating dead animals. The fact that my health has improved and that I believe I am doing something that is environmentally responsible is a nice bonus, but not the primary reason. Now, I was not following the TF diet before I became veg, more of a cross between a SAD diet and a low fat diet heavy in lean meat and grains. The point is, though, that even if there was evidence that by going from a whole-foods vegetarian diet to a TF diet would improve my health even more, I would not be comfortable with it.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *freespirited* 
That said, how will my eating local meats affect starving Africans with the political barriers as they are? There also aren't any people starving in the U.S. because of meat-eating here. What I think about more than people starving because of my (I think conscious) food choices is the environmental impact those choices have on the earth.
<snip>
What compromises do vegetarians and vegans make? If the diet works for you, is it really a compromise or a sacrifice, as it would be for someone who doesn't feel as well on it? There are childfree people who insist they are doing the world a favor by not adding to the population, but if being childfree was a choice they made for other reasons, then it's not right to take credit for helping out the earth while challenging others' choice to have children.

First, I think that you are fooling yourself (thus giving yourself implicit permission to do as you wish) if you believe it won't matter how you eat because of the political barriers in Africa.
And yes, there are people starving in the US. Who is to say whether it is because of meat eating or not? So much grain and farmland is dedicated to livestock. Those items are subsidized while fresh fruits and vegetables are not. I believe it matters.
I do not believe you can disregard starvation in favor of the environmental impact of your food choices. They are interrelated.

Regarding your second paragraph. Does it really matter why someone does something? The effect is the same. This is not about vegetarians taking credit. It's about them doing their part--whether it be for animal welfare, the environmental impact, health, or all three. I don't think your argument is aided by throwing stones at veg*ns.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *avendesora* 
While I absolutely agree with the possibility of symbiotic land use, I haven't found a farm yet that does it.

Have you read the Omnivore's Dilemma? Pollan discusses Joel Salatin and his idea of sustainable farming, or "beyond organic." It's pretty interesting. And, I recently learned that Salatin sells his meat/eggs in my town through a buying club.
There are also farmers that try to implement Salatin's methods.


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
Have you read the Omnivore's Dilemma? Pollan discusses Joel Salatin and his idea of sustainable farming, or "beyond organic." It's pretty interesting. And, I recently learned that Salatin sells his meat/eggs in my town through a buying club.
There are also farmers that try to implement Salatin's methods.

Sorry, yes. I have read OD. What I meant is that I haven't found a farm _within driving distance of myself_ that works that way. I've looked.

Reading OD was one of the things (there were many reasons) that changed my mind from being a vegetarian to being a moderate omnivore.

Aven


----------



## myjo (Feb 14, 2004)

I've been lurking here awhile trying to make sense of what everyone is trying to say. Something that hasn't been mentioned much (maybe once that I can remember) is the possibility of raising some of one's own food.

There are acres and acres of good soil going to waste in suburbia and the outskirts of towns where chickens, and maybe even a cow or goat depending on the amount of land, could be raised for eggs, milk, and meat. So many people with sufficient land for raising food seem content to run to the grocery store, or in the case of environmentally responsible citizens, the farmer's market or out to the farm (which there is nothing wrong with at all)

It seems like so much of this dilemma could be a non-issue if more people who have the time and resources would make the effort to use some of their own land for their dietary needs. People seem to have the idea that they need a farm sized plot of land in order to raise any food. Or that they have to be free from having to make a living in order to have the time. That's just not true. A family of 5 could theoretically raise nearly all their own food on one acre, rotating the garden and the animals over the land periodically. And even busy people can raise a few chickens and some veggies.

I'm not saying everyone in the world has to grow all their own food, or even that most should. I'm just putting it out there that the Earth's land is not being put to very good use when so much of it is in lawns. This is another issue that needs to be looked at when your talking about the ethical and environmental impact of your diet.


----------



## slowtime (Sep 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Plummeting* 
But you're clearly basing this opinion on what has worked for _you_. I *cannot* be healthy eating meat only once or twice a month. It seems there's no point in me attempting to convince anyone who is sure that ALL human beings can survive on one specific dietary plan, but it's simply true. I cannot survive on that little meat without suffering health problems. I have _major_ blood sugar issues when I don't eat meat. Beans are not a good protein source for me at all. Regardless of what other plant foods I eat them with, they leave me feeling lightheaded, sweaty and confused within an hour if I don't eat some animal protein. Nuts do the same, exact thing and I'm sensitive to almonds and pecans anyway (almonds give me a rash on my face and pecans make my mouth burn like hell). Seeds aren't much better. I think you have been very reasonable throughout this thread, so I hope you don't feel like I'm jumping in and getting nitpicky, but I really, really don't understand it when anyone decides that what has worked for them is what will automatically work for everyone. It's not true. It's never true - about any topic!

I definitely think many (maybe most) omnis eat too much animal protein. I can agree with that. I cannot, OTOH, agree that everyone needs to limit it to less than 3 times a month, just because _you_ feel comfortable with that. If I did that, I would be ill, all the opinions of others aside.


I tend to agree that the ideal human diet matches the primate diet. That's _ideal._ The problem there is that human beings have removed themselves (largely) from the process of natural selection. A primate with your dietary issues never would have survived to adulthood. Neither would a human several thousand (or even several hundred) years ago. Humans used to eat what grew in their region whenever it grew, and eat meat and dairy as it was available. There really wasn't a lot of choice. We who live in developed countries are lucky to be having this argument at all. Eleven years ago I chose to be vegetarian. Nine years ago I chose to be vegan. I was lucky to be able to make that choice. Sometimes I feel guilty that I get to choose what to eat, that I get to refuse a major source of sustenance because, as an American, I'm rich enough to disapprove of factory farming and processed food. We obsess over nutrition and supplements and whether or not to give our babies DHA supplements, and these are discussions worth having, but don't lose sight of our context. We're talking about this because we're lucky enough to have abundant food, advanced medical technology, and a lot of education. Humans (in developed countries) since the mid twentieth century are unique in history. Of course no diet will work for everyone. If one diet doesn't work for us, it's not like we're going to run out of options.


----------



## kallyn (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slowtime* 
I tend to agree that the ideal human diet matches the primate diet. That's _ideal._ The problem there is that human beings have removed themselves (largely) from the process of natural selection. A primate with your dietary issues never would have survived to adulthood.

What would you consider an "ideal primate diet?" And why? Just curious, because it seems from the tone of the rest of your post that you consider it to be close to vegetarian. I think that this is a fallacy for several reasons.

Firstly, our closest relatives - the chimps - can and do eat meat. They form hunting parties, take down smaller creatures, and even use meat as a bargaining chip to get mates. Chimps in zoos used to fare very poorly and not breed well because their feed was vegetarian. Once it was discovered that chimps in the wild eat meat, and chimps in zoos started being supplemented with meat, they started to fare much much better and reproduce much more easily.

Second of all, even though we are closely related to chimps, we are not chimps. We are humans. I'm a big supporter of the idea of evolutionary biology. There is a lot of work done in the field of hunter-gatherer studies (both extant groups and paleolithic studies) and all available evidence points to the emergence of _H. sapiens_ as a dominant big-brained species only after meat-eating was widely adopted as a staple food source instead of a supplementary food source. Humans in the wild before the dawn of agriculture had no access to the foods that many vegans consider staples - fresh year-round vegetation, grains, and legumes (and dairy in the case of lacto-veg). We have only had access to these foods for approximately the last 10,000 years which is a drop in the evolutionary bucket. We still have the same basic adaptations and metabolisms as pre-agricultural humans. In any areas where we have both remains of pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers as well as their post-agricultural descendants, the newer remains show evidence of stunting, cavities, and disease that are absent in the older remains.

Here is an interesting paper that talks about something called the "expensive tissue hypothesis" which backs up the humans-as-meat-eaters argument. The paper relatively short and quite readable even for a lay person: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...pt=sci_arttext

I'm not trying to pick on you personally, Slowtime, just using your discussion of an ideal primate diet as a springboard into evolutionary theory.


----------



## tboroson (Nov 19, 2002)

Aven, Charlestown Cooperative Farm in Charlestown is in the beginning stages of building a symbiotic farm like Polyface. In fact, I saw Salatin speak there, and part of his lecture was a walk through CCF's fields to talk to them about how to plan their pastures. They're already chicken tractoring, and I recall seeing turkeys there.

I've been impressed with what I've seen at some of the biodynamic farms - Sankanac, Kimberton Hills Camphill Village. Both are experimenting with these symbiotic relationships. I believe Maysie's Farm may be starting to do some of that too, I haven't been down there in a while.

I've been on Amish farms that use many of Salatin's principals. Not as incredibly experimental as him - his descriptions of overwintering multiple species in his hoophouses was really amazing. But the basic principals, they've implemented. Strip grazing. Pasturing pigs. Chicken tractors.


----------



## avendesora (Sep 23, 2004)

Thanks, Tara. We have some camping trips out that direction this summer. I hope to check some of those out!

Aven


----------



## slowtime (Sep 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee* 
True, but the non-vegan percentage of their diet is no more than 10% and usually closer to 2%. And what you say about dairy is exactly my point... I don't know how you would adjust the years, but human children need dairy (preferably mother's but a substitute animal if not possible) for the same ratio of their lifespan as other primates.

Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.

It is common for the young of a species to eat differently from the adults of that species. I believe there is a type of ant that is carniverous as young but vegan as adults.


Kallyn, this was the quote that I agreed with. My post wasn't a defense of vegetarianism or veganism. I don't think the choices I've made are the right choices for everyone to make. I don't think humankind is meant to be vegan.

My choice was made in response to the post-WWII food economy. I'm reluctant to get too far into what I really think because my opinions are a little extreme, and my heart doesn't always agree with my head. What it boils down to is, the way I think humans should eat and shop and live would require a much smaller human population. I don't want people to starve to death. I don't want plague or massive die-offs. On a personal level, I like living in a big city, I like getting to choose what I eat and never worrying about hunger due to crop failure (or scarce wildlife for hunting), I like using the internet and watching television. But I think we've gone a little out of control, and humans would be better off if there were fewer of us, living in smaller settlements where we were intimately connected with the plants and animals we used for sustenance.

There are disadvantages to that way of living (reduced access to quality health care, increased tribalism, increased xenophobia,) but I think that as far as care of the planet and our species is concerned, the pros outweigh the cons. A large proportion of the human population is completely divorced from all knowledge of food production. We're dependent on oil and dependent on the corporations that rule the global economy. It's dangerous. When the oil supply runs out (or just gets too expensive to use) we're going to be in big trouble. Never in history have the stakes been so high. In the past, if an area experienced drought or plague, or a government fell to war, the danger was only regional. There might be a large loss of life, but it was limited. Now, with developing nations depending on our food supply, and with our country depending on other countries for medical supplies and other imports, billions of people will starve when we run out of oil to run the machines that plant and harvest our crops, not to mention transport them across the country and around the world. What will we do when the grocery stores are empty? We don't know how to make our own food. Most of us will die.

Full disclosure: I don't garden. I've never grown a plant in my life. I have a black thumb, and manage to kill all the plants I bring home, no matter how hard I try. And I do live in a big city, where I'm dependent on grocery stores and produce grown in California and South America. If what I think of as the worst-case-scenario happens, I'll be among the first in this country to starve out of poor location and sheer ignorance. Like I said, my opinions are a little extreme, and my heart doesn't always follow my head.


----------



## kallyn (May 24, 2005)

I actually agree with almost everything you just said, but I didn't post my opinion for fear of opening up that can of worms.


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kallyn* 
We still have the same basic adaptations and metabolisms as pre-agricultural humans. In any areas where we have both remains of pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers as well as their post-agricultural descendants, the newer remains show evidence of stunting, cavities, and disease that are absent in the older remains.

I've read about that, and find it compelling, but OTOH, according to Price those groups who ate grains and prepared them "properly" seem to do fine with eating them. Do you think there may be other factors that separate Price's healthy grain-eating groups from early non-healthy agriculturists?

Quote:

Here is an interesting paper that talks about something called the "expensive tissue hypothesis" which backs up the humans-as-meat-eaters argument. The paper relatively short and quite readable even for a lay person: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...pt=sci_arttext
Thanks for that. I think I kinda get it.









Quote:

I'm not trying to pick on you personally, Slowtime, just using your discussion of an ideal primate diet as a springboard into evolutionary theory.
I'm extremely interested in reading about evolutionary theory, especially because I know very little about evolution and diet.


----------



## kallyn (May 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Chicharronita* 
I've read about that, and find it compelling, but OTOH, according to Price those groups who ate grains and prepared them "properly" seem to do fine with eating them. Do you think there may be other factors that separate Price's healthy grain-eating groups from early non-healthy agriculturists?

I have two theories on that, neither of which I know how to verify! 1) Price's modern indigenous groups were healthier compared to us, true. But were they healthier compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors? I liken this to modern studies that show various diets are the "healthiest" but the only standard of comparison is the SAD - yes, they are healthy compared to SAD but are they healthy compared to whatever the optimal diet is? Just about anything is healthy compared to SAD.







2) The first agriculturalists had not yet figured out how to make these agricultural foods completely edible (didn't know to soak, ferment, etc) and suffered, but then later they learned how to adapt these new foodstuffs to themselves. This would only be true if the first agriculturalists remains were markedly more stunted and diseased than later agriculturalists, but I don't know of any specific data that would let us compare. I DO know that the mummified remains of Egyptians (who ate little meat and lots of whole grains) show a lot of disease including cavities, obesity, and arthritis, so I would be inclined to suspect that this particular hypothesis might be wrong.

Here's a link to an article from Discovery about some human remains from Mesolithic Britain (8k years ago) that showed almost complete carnivory. 8kya is after the agricultural revolution that took place in the fertile crescent, but agriculture had not yet reached the British Isles by this point. The link goes to a blog because the article was taken down from its original news site and the blogger reposted it: http://wisewitch.blogspot.com/2007/0...ke-wolves.html

Anyway I'd love to talk more later but I've got to run - company's here!


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

I've been thinking a lot about criticism in regard to Price's work being "old" and supposedly not up-to-par with recent nutrition research.

Unfortunately, it seems like the criticism comes mostly from those who haven't even read _NAPD_. I wish someone who has actually read the book would comment on what specifically they find outdated or objectionable by today's supposed cutting-edge research. It would be nice if that someone had a clue about nutrition, too, because then maybe I could learn something new!


----------



## Chicharronita (Oct 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kallyn* 
I have two theories on that, neither of which I know how to verify! 1) Price's modern indigenous groups were healthier compared to us, true. But were they healthier compared to their hunter-gatherer ancestors?

I have a feeling that they were. Take a look at the pre-Columbian skulls at the bottom of the page (dunno if pre-Columbian is old enough to compare with hunter-gatherers, though).

Here's a couple of pictures, comparing Australian Aboriginal skulls with that of the Peking man.

Price wrote, "The age of the Peking skulls has been variously placed from several hundred thousand to a million years. A distinguished anthropologist has stated that the Australian primitives are the only people living on the earth today that could be part of the first race of mankind. It is a matter of concern that if a scale were extended a mile long and the decades represented by inches, there would apparently be more degeneration in the last few inches than in the preceding mile. This gives some idea of the virulence of the blight contributed by our modern civilization."

Quote:

The first agriculturalists had not yet figured out how to make these agricultural foods completely edible (didn't know to soak, ferment, etc) and suffered, but then later they learned how to adapt these new foodstuffs to themselves. This would only be true if the first agriculturalists remains were markedly more stunted and diseased than later agriculturalists, but I don't know of any specific data that would let us compare.
I wonder if there are data about that?

Quote:

I DO know that the mummified remains of Egyptians (who ate little meat and lots of whole grains) show a lot of disease including cavities, obesity, and arthritis, so I would be inclined to suspect that this particular hypothesis might be wrong.
Didn't they eat a lot of refined grains? I thought I read that they ate the equivalent to our white bread (at least the rich Egyptians). Here's a link to a chapter called "Curse of the Mummies" from _Protein Power_.

Quote:

The link goes to a blog because the article was taken down from its original news site and the blogger reposted it: http://wisewitch.blogspot.com/2007/0...ke-wolves.html
I love Emma's blog! I thought this was an interesting comment:

"The reason we are salicylate sensitive as a species is not because there is something terribly wrong with a small minority of us, but because we evolved to eat fresh meat, and very little else."

Quote:

Anyway I'd love to talk more later but I've got to run - company's here!
Have fun!


----------



## Margot Adler (Jun 2, 2007)

magstphil said:


> the thing is i don't care how someone gets to where ever they choose to be but i do care when the people are putting themselves in danger because they are less concerned about their health than they are not eating animal products.
> 
> absolutely, but oftentimes those who choose to eat with the 'mainstream' are putting their health at greater risk than many of those who conciously choose to eat a more well thought out diet. you can't say that it is irresponsible to raise a vegan child, only that it is irresponsible to feed your child a diet that is lacking in the nutrients that they need, which can apply to any diet, vegan or conventional, but does not have to apply to either.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

I'm enjoying this thread tremendously, although I'm quite sad that most (all?) of the vegans seem to have dropped out . . . it seems everyone has different views about what constitutes good nutrition as well as different visions for what a healthy, sustainable world might be - and try as I might, I've never been able to picture a completely vegan, sustainable world (although I would truly love to hear how that might work, I honestly love hearing about different perspectives!)

Just wanted to say that. Oh, and Planck's article sucks - I'm kinda glad I never bought her book, I don't wish to support such a sensationalistic militant writer.


----------



## hanno (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Individuation* 
OK, since this ISN'T on the Veg*n board, I'm going to weigh in with my completely unpopular opinion. Bear in mind that what I post here is based entirely on anecdotal evidence rather than published studies (I've looked, but haven't found enough of them that didn't have an obviously pro-dairy-industry slant).

I've known a LOT of vegan children. I was raised by hippies, first of all, and then I ran a veg*n restaurant that had a really "family" clientele including lots of vegans. I've worked on organic farms alongside vegan families. I've been doing this for a long time. I've also been a private vegan chef, and studied a fair amount of nutrition. FWIW, I was ranting about processed soy several years ago and everyone told me I was CRAZY, soy was BY DEFINITION nutritious and healthy. I'm so glad there's a more reasoned view on that now.

Some more caveats here: I think veganism is the ethically ideal way to eat. I was raised Buddhist. I try to live as close to that ideal as I can. I do NOT scoff at veganism. I love and applaud people who raise their children with the ethical structure that veganism implies.

That said.

In my experience, I think it is difficult to the point of being nearly impossible to raise children with a nutritionally adequate vegan diet. (Here's where the flamethrowers start to get charged up, I'm sure.) Yes, I know some people can make a full-time job of it with supplements and perfect nutritional balance and can achieve near-adequacy. However, this is assuming a Herculean level of planning and a basically-healthy-in-all-other-ways child. Most parents do not have either.

When I ran the restaurant, it was an ongoing topic of conversation among the (almost entirely vegetarian) staff, several of whom decided they would not raise their children vegan given what they'd seen. It was scary. You could pick the vegan children out at a glance. They were shorter. They were spindly. They clutched asthma inhalers or had tremors. They were, for want of a better word, sickly. I stopped guessing ages, because I would be so wildly off with vegan kids "He's so cute, is he two?" "Actually, he's five."

I have never--not once--met a vegan child who did not have health problems, or who was not VISIBLY more unhealthy than his/her peers.

I'm assuming they exist, because parents on internet message boards are always telling me that their child is completely healthy, and is vegan. And I will not call such parents liars. But I have met many, many more vegan and vegetarian children than the average person, and based on my observations I do not consider strict veganism to be an appropriate diet for a child.

Sometimes a do see a normal-looking kid, and the parents will claim to be vegan. And this will make me very happy, as I _want_ veganism to be healthy for children! Inevitably, it comes out that the family is vegan but the child was given raw milk until the age of eight, or the child is given fresh fish caught by the family in a stream, or the mother believes children should be able to eat eggs. SOME kind of animal protein is sneaking its way in there.

I really wish this weren't what I had observed. And hey--if you're in NYC and want to show me otherwise, please do! I'd love to see if I could transition my children to veganism. But I can't--won't--do so until I see something different than what I've seen so far.

So yes, I think this article is dealing with reality. If debate on this topic is not allowed, then this thread should be moved to the veg*n board. As I said, I would never post this there--I would consider it rude to invade veg*n space with debate. However, I do think this needed to be said.

I know this is old, but I really want to know more about this post.


----------

