The China Study

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Bawl, Apr 2, 2005.

  1. Bawl

    Bawl Guest

    From: "Robert Cohen" <[email protected]>
    Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 12:08 pm
    Subject: The China Study
    ..

    The China Study

    Oprah has a book club, and now, so do I! Each week, I manage
    to read two or three books, and from time to time, I'll
    be sharing my favorites with you. This past week, I
    made the exception to my own rule, and read one book from
    comer to cover--twice! This must-read book is "The China
    Study," by T. Colin Campbell and his son, Thomas. T. Colin
    Campbell (the dad) is a great writer in his own right, but
    this new father and son team have synergized their energies
    to create a classic in the genre of nutritional texts.

    Early on in their brilliantly written book (page 21),
    the Campbells tell their readers:

    "So, what is the prescription for good health? In short, it
    is about the multiple health benefits of consuming plant-
    based foods, and the largely unappreciated health dangers
    of consuming animal-based foods, including all types of
    meat, dairy, and eggs."

    That's a pretty good start, and it gets even better.

    T. Colin Campbell's perspectives are simply amazing. On page
    21, he expresses a contrarian philosophy to most modern-day
    health gurus:

    "One of the more exciting benefits of good nutrition
    is the prevention of diseases that are thought to be
    due to genetic predisposition."

    Campbell has learned throughout his esteemed career that
    disease can easily be reversed and cured by adopting
    a plant-based diet.

    By quoting Goethe on page 27, Campbell exposes America's
    great protein myth, as promoted by the all-powerful milk
    and meat industries. He writes:

    "We are best at hiding those things which are in plain site."

    Campbell's sense of humor is at its best in this upscale
    well-documented book. His chapter on protein consumption
    should be read by every American. Healthy people should
    reinforce good physiology by Campbell's advice, and ill people
    should be inspired to take the cure by eating a plant-based
    diet. On page 30, Campbell asks:

    "Can you guess what food we might eat to most efficiently
    provide the building blocks for our replacement proteins?
    The answer is human flesh."

    Very funny! Of course, most are not willing to live on Mrs.
    Lovett's human meat pies. Or are we? The trouble is, with
    human and animal flesh, there are many dangerous byproducts
    to consider. The urea, ammonia, and dirty residues of animal
    proteins and saturated fats compromise carnivores.

    Campbell is at his best when writing about "Broken Hearts"
    on page 111. You will learn that during the Korean War, 77.3
    percent of healthy hearts autopsied from American casualties
    revealed advanced heart disease. These diseased hearts were
    taken from the bodies of so-called healthy males who had
    eaten the standard American diet. Campbell offers the hows
    and whys of heart disease...and the cure-all.

    On page 255, Campbell walks you through the American
    government's relationship with milk and meat producers.
    Conspiracy? Absolutely, and Campbell's detailed evidence
    and research reads like a detective story. One smoking gun
    after another overwhelms the reader into recognizing
    that things could have been different for our children
    had only those men in power possessed ethics. If only they
    had respected real science and not the almighty dollar.
    We have been betrayed, and T. Colin Campbell has survived
    in an academic environment despite those pressures exerted by
    bureaucrats with enormous financial conflicts of interest.

    Campbell's commentary on nutritional training, or the lack
    thereof for doctors is magnificent. On page 327, Campbell writes:

    "The situation is dangerous. Nutrition training of doctors
    is not merely inadequate; it is practically nonexistent...The
    bulk of these nutrition hours are taught in the first year of
    medical school, as part of other basic science courses...When
    nutrition education is provided in relation to public health
    problems, guess who is supplying the 'educational' material?
    The Dannon Institute, Egg Nutrition Board, National Cattlemen's
    Beef Association, National Dairy Council, Nestle Clinical
    Nutrition, Wyeth-Ayerst Labortories, Briston-Myers Squibb
    Company..."

    Campbell then asks:

    "Do you think that this all-star team of animal foods and drug
    industries representatives is going to objectively judge and
    promote optimal nutrition, which science has shown to be a
    whole foods, plant-based diet that minimizes the need for drugs?"

    The book is a must read for those who know a thing or two, and
    those who have not a clue. I've read no better book on nutrition
    than this one, which will arm you in nutritional arguments
    presented by meat-eating doubting Thomases.

    The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell, PhD, with Thomas
    Campbell is available on Amazon.com:

    http://tinyurl.com/6ggan

    Robert Cohen
    http://www.notmilk.com
     
    Tags:


  2. Roger Rabbit

    Roger Rabbit Guest

    So the answer to great health is following an unnatural, low-fat
    plant-based diet? First off, humans were never vegetarian, despite
    what the vegetarian's will have you believe. Secondly, low-fat is a
    modern (1970s, 1980's, etc) manmade creation and is difficult to
    follow. Hmmmm, could it be that when you restrict fat your body is
    trying to tell you something? It is sad when one's diet becomes their
    religion. :eek:(

    rr

    On 2 Apr 2005 10:47:59 -0800, "Bawl" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >From: "Robert Cohen" <[email protected]>
    >Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 12:08 pm
    >Subject: The China Study
    >.
    >
    >The China Study
    >
    >Oprah has a book club, and now, so do I! Each week, I manage
    >to read two or three books, and from time to time, I'll
    >be sharing my favorites with you. This past week, I
    >made the exception to my own rule, and read one book from
    >comer to cover--twice! This must-read book is "The China
    >Study," by T. Colin Campbell and his son, Thomas. T. Colin
    >Campbell (the dad) is a great writer in his own right, but
    >this new father and son team have synergized their energies
    >to create a classic in the genre of nutritional texts.
    >
    >Early on in their brilliantly written book (page 21),
    >the Campbells tell their readers:
    >
    >"So, what is the prescription for good health? In short, it
    >is about the multiple health benefits of consuming plant-
    >based foods, and the largely unappreciated health dangers
    >of consuming animal-based foods, including all types of
    >meat, dairy, and eggs."
    >
    >That's a pretty good start, and it gets even better.
    >
    >T. Colin Campbell's perspectives are simply amazing. On page
    >21, he expresses a contrarian philosophy to most modern-day
    >health gurus:
    >
    >"One of the more exciting benefits of good nutrition
    >is the prevention of diseases that are thought to be
    >due to genetic predisposition."
    >
    >Campbell has learned throughout his esteemed career that
    >disease can easily be reversed and cured by adopting
    >a plant-based diet.
    >
    >By quoting Goethe on page 27, Campbell exposes America's
    >great protein myth, as promoted by the all-powerful milk
    >and meat industries. He writes:
    >
    >"We are best at hiding those things which are in plain site."
    >
    >Campbell's sense of humor is at its best in this upscale
    >well-documented book. His chapter on protein consumption
    >should be read by every American. Healthy people should
    >reinforce good physiology by Campbell's advice, and ill people
    >should be inspired to take the cure by eating a plant-based
    >diet. On page 30, Campbell asks:
    >
    >"Can you guess what food we might eat to most efficiently
    >provide the building blocks for our replacement proteins?
    >The answer is human flesh."
    >
    >Very funny! Of course, most are not willing to live on Mrs.
    >Lovett's human meat pies. Or are we? The trouble is, with
    >human and animal flesh, there are many dangerous byproducts
    >to consider. The urea, ammonia, and dirty residues of animal
    >proteins and saturated fats compromise carnivores.
    >
    >Campbell is at his best when writing about "Broken Hearts"
    >on page 111. You will learn that during the Korean War, 77.3
    >percent of healthy hearts autopsied from American casualties
    >revealed advanced heart disease. These diseased hearts were
    >taken from the bodies of so-called healthy males who had
    >eaten the standard American diet. Campbell offers the hows
    >and whys of heart disease...and the cure-all.
    >
    >On page 255, Campbell walks you through the American
    >government's relationship with milk and meat producers.
    >Conspiracy? Absolutely, and Campbell's detailed evidence
    >and research reads like a detective story. One smoking gun
    >after another overwhelms the reader into recognizing
    >that things could have been different for our children
    >had only those men in power possessed ethics. If only they
    >had respected real science and not the almighty dollar.
    >We have been betrayed, and T. Colin Campbell has survived
    >in an academic environment despite those pressures exerted by
    >bureaucrats with enormous financial conflicts of interest.
    >
    >Campbell's commentary on nutritional training, or the lack
    >thereof for doctors is magnificent. On page 327, Campbell writes:
    >
    >"The situation is dangerous. Nutrition training of doctors
    >is not merely inadequate; it is practically nonexistent...The
    >bulk of these nutrition hours are taught in the first year of
    >medical school, as part of other basic science courses...When
    >nutrition education is provided in relation to public health
    >problems, guess who is supplying the 'educational' material?
    >The Dannon Institute, Egg Nutrition Board, National Cattlemen's
    >Beef Association, National Dairy Council, Nestle Clinical
    >Nutrition, Wyeth-Ayerst Labortories, Briston-Myers Squibb
    >Company..."
    >
    >Campbell then asks:
    >
    >"Do you think that this all-star team of animal foods and drug
    >industries representatives is going to objectively judge and
    >promote optimal nutrition, which science has shown to be a
    >whole foods, plant-based diet that minimizes the need for drugs?"
    >
    >The book is a must read for those who know a thing or two, and
    >those who have not a clue. I've read no better book on nutrition
    >than this one, which will arm you in nutritional arguments
    >presented by meat-eating doubting Thomases.
    >
    >The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell, PhD, with Thomas
    >Campbell is available on Amazon.com:
    >
    >http://tinyurl.com/6ggan
    >
    >Robert Cohen
    >http://www.notmilk.com
     
  3. Phil Scott

    Phil Scott Guest

    "Roger Rabbit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > So the answer to great health is following an unnatural,

    low-fat
    > plant-based diet? First off, humans were never vegetarian,

    despite
    > what the vegetarian's will have you believe. Secondly,

    low-fat is a
    > modern (1970s, 1980's, etc) manmade creation and is

    difficult to
    > follow. Hmmmm, could it be that when you restrict fat your

    body is
    > trying to tell you something? It is sad when one's diet

    becomes their
    > religion. :eek:(
    >
    > rr


    Your remarks are not impressive, you do not argue the
    points but resort to ad hominem insults...anonomously..
    not impressive. Have you written a book? nah.. do you know
    enough to argue the issues even? no.


    >
    > On 2 Apr 2005 10:47:59 -0800, "Bawl"

    <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >From: "Robert Cohen" <[email protected]>
    > >Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 12:08 pm
    > >Subject: The China Study
    > >.
    > >
    > >The China Study
    > >
    > >Oprah has a book club, and now, so do I! Each week, I

    manage
    > >to read two or three books, and from time to time, I'll
    > >be sharing my favorites with you. This past week, I
    > >made the exception to my own rule, and read one book from
    > >comer to cover--twice! This must-read book is "The China
    > >Study," by T. Colin Campbell and his son, Thomas. T. Colin
    > >Campbell (the dad) is a great writer in his own right, but
    > >this new father and son team have synergized their energies
    > >to create a classic in the genre of nutritional texts.
    > >
    > >Early on in their brilliantly written book (page 21),
    > >the Campbells tell their readers:
    > >
    > >"So, what is the prescription for good health? In short, it
    > >is about the multiple health benefits of consuming plant-
    > >based foods, and the largely unappreciated health dangers
    > >of consuming animal-based foods, including all types of
    > >meat, dairy, and eggs."
    > >
    > >That's a pretty good start, and it gets even better.
    > >
    > >T. Colin Campbell's perspectives are simply amazing. On

    page
    > >21, he expresses a contrarian philosophy to most modern-day
    > >health gurus:
    > >
    > >"One of the more exciting benefits of good nutrition
    > >is the prevention of diseases that are thought to be
    > >due to genetic predisposition."
    > >
    > >Campbell has learned throughout his esteemed career that
    > >disease can easily be reversed and cured by adopting
    > >a plant-based diet.
    > >
    > >By quoting Goethe on page 27, Campbell exposes America's
    > >great protein myth, as promoted by the all-powerful milk
    > >and meat industries. He writes:
    > >
    > >"We are best at hiding those things which are in plain

    site."
    > >
    > >Campbell's sense of humor is at its best in this upscale
    > >well-documented book. His chapter on protein consumption
    > >should be read by every American. Healthy people should
    > >reinforce good physiology by Campbell's advice, and ill

    people
    > >should be inspired to take the cure by eating a plant-based
    > >diet. On page 30, Campbell asks:
    > >
    > >"Can you guess what food we might eat to most efficiently
    > >provide the building blocks for our replacement proteins?
    > >The answer is human flesh."
    > >
    > >Very funny! Of course, most are not willing to live on Mrs.
    > >Lovett's human meat pies. Or are we? The trouble is, with
    > >human and animal flesh, there are many dangerous byproducts
    > >to consider. The urea, ammonia, and dirty residues of

    animal
    > >proteins and saturated fats compromise carnivores.
    > >
    > >Campbell is at his best when writing about "Broken Hearts"
    > >on page 111. You will learn that during the Korean War,

    77.3
    > >percent of healthy hearts autopsied from American

    casualties
    > >revealed advanced heart disease. These diseased hearts were
    > >taken from the bodies of so-called healthy males who had
    > >eaten the standard American diet. Campbell offers the hows
    > >and whys of heart disease...and the cure-all.
    > >
    > >On page 255, Campbell walks you through the American
    > >government's relationship with milk and meat producers.
    > >Conspiracy? Absolutely, and Campbell's detailed evidence
    > >and research reads like a detective story. One smoking gun
    > >after another overwhelms the reader into recognizing
    > >that things could have been different for our children
    > >had only those men in power possessed ethics. If only they
    > >had respected real science and not the almighty dollar.
    > >We have been betrayed, and T. Colin Campbell has survived
    > >in an academic environment despite those pressures exerted

    by
    > >bureaucrats with enormous financial conflicts of interest.
    > >
    > >Campbell's commentary on nutritional training, or the lack
    > >thereof for doctors is magnificent. On page 327, Campbell

    writes:
    > >
    > >"The situation is dangerous. Nutrition training of doctors
    > >is not merely inadequate; it is practically

    nonexistent...The
    > >bulk of these nutrition hours are taught in the first year

    of
    > >medical school, as part of other basic science

    courses...When
    > >nutrition education is provided in relation to public

    health
    > >problems, guess who is supplying the 'educational'

    material?
    > >The Dannon Institute, Egg Nutrition Board, National

    Cattlemen's
    > >Beef Association, National Dairy Council, Nestle Clinical
    > >Nutrition, Wyeth-Ayerst Labortories, Briston-Myers Squibb
    > >Company..."
    > >
    > >Campbell then asks:
    > >
    > >"Do you think that this all-star team of animal foods and

    drug
    > >industries representatives is going to objectively judge

    and
    > >promote optimal nutrition, which science has shown to be a
    > >whole foods, plant-based diet that minimizes the need for

    drugs?"
    > >
    > >The book is a must read for those who know a thing or two,

    and
    > >those who have not a clue. I've read no better book on

    nutrition
    > >than this one, which will arm you in nutritional arguments
    > >presented by meat-eating doubting Thomases.
    > >
    > >The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell, PhD, with Thomas
    > >Campbell is available on Amazon.com:
    > >
    > >http://tinyurl.com/6ggan
    > >
    > >Robert Cohen
    > >http://www.notmilk.com

    >
     
  4. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    Roger Rabbit wrote:
    :: On 2 Apr 2005 10:47:59 -0800, "Bawl" <[email protected]>
    :: wrote:
    ::
    ::: The China Study
    ::: [...]
    ::: "So, what is the prescription for good health? In short, it
    ::: is about the multiple health benefits of consuming plant-
    ::: based foods, and the largely unappreciated health dangers
    ::: of consuming animal-based foods, including all types of
    ::: meat, dairy, and eggs."
    ::: [...]
    :::
    ::: Campbell is at his best when writing about "Broken Hearts"
    ::: on page 111. You will learn that during the Korean War, 77.3
    ::: percent of healthy hearts autopsied from American casualties
    ::: revealed advanced heart disease. These diseased hearts were
    ::: taken from the bodies of so-called healthy males who had
    ::: eaten the standard American diet. Campbell offers the hows
    ::: and whys of heart disease...and the cure-all.
    ::: [...]
    :: So the answer to great health is following an unnatural, low-fat
    :: plant-based diet? First off, humans were never vegetarian, despite
    :: what the vegetarian's will have you believe. Secondly, low-fat is a
    :: modern (1970s, 1980's, etc) manmade creation and is difficult to
    :: follow. Hmmmm, could it be that when you restrict fat your body is
    :: trying to tell you something? It is sad when one's diet becomes their
    :: religion. :eek:(

    Here are some of my impressions after reading the book. As I have said
    before the title of the book is misleading as the book is *not* mostly about
    the China study. It is a general book about what Campbell considers to be a
    healthy diet. I have admit that Campbell is very convincing when he speaks
    about the health benefits of plant-based diets, but at the same time there
    is also a certain bias through out the whole book and I don't feel that
    Campbell is totally honest in his approach. Even though Campbell writes
    about the prevention of cardiovascular diseases he fails to mention the
    Seven Countries Study, the Lyon Heart Study, Greece and Crete. Even the
    Mediterranean diet is not mentioned at all, which is strange as Campbell
    speaks very strongly in favor of the Ornish diet and its benefits in the
    cardiovascular diseases. Campbell also passes the omega-3 fatty acids and
    fish oils very briefly and with contempt. If the book were mainly about
    China, these defects might be understandable, but the book is not. I would
    say that it is a book worth of reading but with certain reservations.

    --
    Juhana
     
  5. Roger Rabbit

    Roger Rabbit Guest

    I have heard Campbell speak and yes, he is very convincing.
    Unfortunately he is also caught up in this vegetarian propaganda. :eek:(

    You mention the Seven Countries Study. Unfortunately for that study it
    is flawed. There are many countries left out of the study that would
    prove Key's theory incorrect or at least inconclusive.

    There are many so-called health concerned people that feel that an
    unnatural, low-fat, plant-based diet is the way to go. Unfortunately,
    this low-fat myth is based upon studies that supposedly show a
    diet/heart link. When you look at the data you will wonder how this
    link has managed to last this long.

    rr


    On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:10:11 +0300, "Juhana Harju"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Roger Rabbit wrote:
    >:: On 2 Apr 2005 10:47:59 -0800, "Bawl" <[email protected]>
    >:: wrote:
    >::
    >::: The China Study
    >::: [...]
    >::: "So, what is the prescription for good health? In short, it
    >::: is about the multiple health benefits of consuming plant-
    >::: based foods, and the largely unappreciated health dangers
    >::: of consuming animal-based foods, including all types of
    >::: meat, dairy, and eggs."
    >::: [...]
    >:::
    >::: Campbell is at his best when writing about "Broken Hearts"
    >::: on page 111. You will learn that during the Korean War, 77.3
    >::: percent of healthy hearts autopsied from American casualties
    >::: revealed advanced heart disease. These diseased hearts were
    >::: taken from the bodies of so-called healthy males who had
    >::: eaten the standard American diet. Campbell offers the hows
    >::: and whys of heart disease...and the cure-all.
    >::: [...]
    >:: So the answer to great health is following an unnatural, low-fat
    >:: plant-based diet? First off, humans were never vegetarian, despite
    >:: what the vegetarian's will have you believe. Secondly, low-fat is a
    >:: modern (1970s, 1980's, etc) manmade creation and is difficult to
    >:: follow. Hmmmm, could it be that when you restrict fat your body is
    >:: trying to tell you something? It is sad when one's diet becomes their
    >:: religion. :eek:(
    >
    >Here are some of my impressions after reading the book. As I have said
    >before the title of the book is misleading as the book is *not* mostly about
    >the China study. It is a general book about what Campbell considers to be a
    >healthy diet. I have admit that Campbell is very convincing when he speaks
    >about the health benefits of plant-based diets, but at the same time there
    >is also a certain bias through out the whole book and I don't feel that
    >Campbell is totally honest in his approach. Even though Campbell writes
    >about the prevention of cardiovascular diseases he fails to mention the
    >Seven Countries Study, the Lyon Heart Study, Greece and Crete. Even the
    >Mediterranean diet is not mentioned at all, which is strange as Campbell
    >speaks very strongly in favor of the Ornish diet and its benefits in the
    >cardiovascular diseases. Campbell also passes the omega-3 fatty acids and
    >fish oils very briefly and with contempt. If the book were mainly about
    >China, these defects might be understandable, but the book is not. I would
    >say that it is a book worth of reading but with certain reservations.
     
  6. Roger Rabbit

    Roger Rabbit Guest

    I am sorry that you are not impressed but then again impressing you
    was not my intention nor will it ever be. The points have been
    discussed, here in this ng and in literature. If you are caught up in
    this vegetarian myth then that's your problem, not mine. Written a
    book? Many a quack has written a book. I recall some writing a book
    about a blood type/diet concept. Do you have a point or do you just
    like hearing yourself talk?

    Regards.

    rr


    On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:16:38 GMT, "Phil Scott"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Roger Rabbit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> So the answer to great health is following an unnatural,

    >low-fat
    >> plant-based diet? First off, humans were never vegetarian,

    >despite
    >> what the vegetarian's will have you believe. Secondly,

    >low-fat is a
    >> modern (1970s, 1980's, etc) manmade creation and is

    >difficult to
    >> follow. Hmmmm, could it be that when you restrict fat your

    >body is
    >> trying to tell you something? It is sad when one's diet

    >becomes their
    >> religion. :eek:(
    >>
    >> rr

    >
    > Your remarks are not impressive, you do not argue the
    >points but resort to ad hominem insults...anonomously..
    >not impressive. Have you written a book? nah.. do you know
    >enough to argue the issues even? no.
    >
    >
    >>
    >> On 2 Apr 2005 10:47:59 -0800, "Bawl"

    ><[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >From: "Robert Cohen" <[email protected]>
    >> >Date: Sat Apr 2, 2005 12:08 pm
    >> >Subject: The China Study
    >> >.
    >> >
    >> >The China Study
    >> >
    >> >Oprah has a book club, and now, so do I! Each week, I

    >manage
    >> >to read two or three books, and from time to time, I'll
    >> >be sharing my favorites with you. This past week, I
    >> >made the exception to my own rule, and read one book from
    >> >comer to cover--twice! This must-read book is "The China
    >> >Study," by T. Colin Campbell and his son, Thomas. T. Colin
    >> >Campbell (the dad) is a great writer in his own right, but
    >> >this new father and son team have synergized their energies
    >> >to create a classic in the genre of nutritional texts.
    >> >
    >> >Early on in their brilliantly written book (page 21),
    >> >the Campbells tell their readers:
    >> >
    >> >"So, what is the prescription for good health? In short, it
    >> >is about the multiple health benefits of consuming plant-
    >> >based foods, and the largely unappreciated health dangers
    >> >of consuming animal-based foods, including all types of
    >> >meat, dairy, and eggs."
    >> >
    >> >That's a pretty good start, and it gets even better.
    >> >
    >> >T. Colin Campbell's perspectives are simply amazing. On

    >page
    >> >21, he expresses a contrarian philosophy to most modern-day
    >> >health gurus:
    >> >
    >> >"One of the more exciting benefits of good nutrition
    >> >is the prevention of diseases that are thought to be
    >> >due to genetic predisposition."
    >> >
    >> >Campbell has learned throughout his esteemed career that
    >> >disease can easily be reversed and cured by adopting
    >> >a plant-based diet.
    >> >
    >> >By quoting Goethe on page 27, Campbell exposes America's
    >> >great protein myth, as promoted by the all-powerful milk
    >> >and meat industries. He writes:
    >> >
    >> >"We are best at hiding those things which are in plain

    >site."
    >> >
    >> >Campbell's sense of humor is at its best in this upscale
    >> >well-documented book. His chapter on protein consumption
    >> >should be read by every American. Healthy people should
    >> >reinforce good physiology by Campbell's advice, and ill

    >people
    >> >should be inspired to take the cure by eating a plant-based
    >> >diet. On page 30, Campbell asks:
    >> >
    >> >"Can you guess what food we might eat to most efficiently
    >> >provide the building blocks for our replacement proteins?
    >> >The answer is human flesh."
    >> >
    >> >Very funny! Of course, most are not willing to live on Mrs.
    >> >Lovett's human meat pies. Or are we? The trouble is, with
    >> >human and animal flesh, there are many dangerous byproducts
    >> >to consider. The urea, ammonia, and dirty residues of

    >animal
    >> >proteins and saturated fats compromise carnivores.
    >> >
    >> >Campbell is at his best when writing about "Broken Hearts"
    >> >on page 111. You will learn that during the Korean War,

    >77.3
    >> >percent of healthy hearts autopsied from American

    >casualties
    >> >revealed advanced heart disease. These diseased hearts were
    >> >taken from the bodies of so-called healthy males who had
    >> >eaten the standard American diet. Campbell offers the hows
    >> >and whys of heart disease...and the cure-all.
    >> >
    >> >On page 255, Campbell walks you through the American
    >> >government's relationship with milk and meat producers.
    >> >Conspiracy? Absolutely, and Campbell's detailed evidence
    >> >and research reads like a detective story. One smoking gun
    >> >after another overwhelms the reader into recognizing
    >> >that things could have been different for our children
    >> >had only those men in power possessed ethics. If only they
    >> >had respected real science and not the almighty dollar.
    >> >We have been betrayed, and T. Colin Campbell has survived
    >> >in an academic environment despite those pressures exerted

    >by
    >> >bureaucrats with enormous financial conflicts of interest.
    >> >
    >> >Campbell's commentary on nutritional training, or the lack
    >> >thereof for doctors is magnificent. On page 327, Campbell

    >writes:
    >> >
    >> >"The situation is dangerous. Nutrition training of doctors
    >> >is not merely inadequate; it is practically

    >nonexistent...The
    >> >bulk of these nutrition hours are taught in the first year

    >of
    >> >medical school, as part of other basic science

    >courses...When
    >> >nutrition education is provided in relation to public

    >health
    >> >problems, guess who is supplying the 'educational'

    >material?
    >> >The Dannon Institute, Egg Nutrition Board, National

    >Cattlemen's
    >> >Beef Association, National Dairy Council, Nestle Clinical
    >> >Nutrition, Wyeth-Ayerst Labortories, Briston-Myers Squibb
    >> >Company..."
    >> >
    >> >Campbell then asks:
    >> >
    >> >"Do you think that this all-star team of animal foods and

    >drug
    >> >industries representatives is going to objectively judge

    >and
    >> >promote optimal nutrition, which science has shown to be a
    >> >whole foods, plant-based diet that minimizes the need for

    >drugs?"
    >> >
    >> >The book is a must read for those who know a thing or two,

    >and
    >> >those who have not a clue. I've read no better book on

    >nutrition
    >> >than this one, which will arm you in nutritional arguments
    >> >presented by meat-eating doubting Thomases.
    >> >
    >> >The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell, PhD, with Thomas
    >> >Campbell is available on Amazon.com:
    >> >
    >> >http://tinyurl.com/6ggan
    >> >
    >> >Robert Cohen
    >> >http://www.notmilk.com

    >>

    >
     
  7. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    Roger Rabbit wrote:
    :: I have heard Campbell speak and yes, he is very convincing.
    :: Unfortunately he is also caught up in this vegetarian propaganda. :eek:(
    ::
    :: You mention the Seven Countries Study. Unfortunately for that study
    :: it is flawed. There are many countries left out of the study that
    :: would prove Key's theory incorrect or at least inconclusive.
    ::
    :: There are many so-called health concerned people that feel that an
    :: unnatural, low-fat, plant-based diet is the way to go. Unfortunately,
    :: this low-fat myth is based upon studies that supposedly show a
    :: diet/heart link. When you look at the data you will wonder how this
    :: link has managed to last this long.

    Actually I do believe that plant-based diets are healthy. Even if you don't
    believe in the Seven Countries Study there are countless other studies
    showing the association of red meat and dairy fat to degenerative diseases
    and also countless of studies showing the benefits of a diet high in
    vegetables and fruits. My point was rather that Campbell refuses to partake
    to the intelligent nutritional discourse. He exercises his shadowboxing
    against the Atkins diet, but he refuses to partake to an intelligent
    discussion about the health benefits of a traditional Mediterranean type of
    diet, which would be the real, competing alternative to his low fat vegan
    suggestions.

    Juhana

    ::
    ::
    :: On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:10:11 +0300, "Juhana Harju"
    :: <[email protected]> wrote:
    ::
    ::: Roger Rabbit wrote:
    ::::: On 2 Apr 2005 10:47:59 -0800, "Bawl" <[email protected]>
    ::::: wrote:
    :::::
    :::::: The China Study
    :::::: [...]
    :::::: "So, what is the prescription for good health? In short, it
    :::::: is about the multiple health benefits of consuming plant-
    :::::: based foods, and the largely unappreciated health dangers
    :::::: of consuming animal-based foods, including all types of
    :::::: meat, dairy, and eggs."
    :::::: [...]
    ::::::
    :::::: Campbell is at his best when writing about "Broken Hearts"
    :::::: on page 111. You will learn that during the Korean War, 77.3
    :::::: percent of healthy hearts autopsied from American casualties
    :::::: revealed advanced heart disease. These diseased hearts were
    :::::: taken from the bodies of so-called healthy males who had
    :::::: eaten the standard American diet. Campbell offers the hows
    :::::: and whys of heart disease...and the cure-all.
    :::::: [...]
    ::::: So the answer to great health is following an unnatural, low-fat
    ::::: plant-based diet? First off, humans were never vegetarian, despite
    ::::: what the vegetarian's will have you believe. Secondly, low-fat is
    ::::: a modern (1970s, 1980's, etc) manmade creation and is difficult to
    ::::: follow. Hmmmm, could it be that when you restrict fat your body is
    ::::: trying to tell you something? It is sad when one's diet becomes
    ::::: their religion. :eek:(
    :::
    ::: Here are some of my impressions after reading the book. As I have
    ::: said before the title of the book is misleading as the book is
    ::: *not* mostly about the China study. It is a general book about what
    ::: Campbell considers to be a healthy diet. I have admit that
    ::: Campbell is very convincing when he speaks about the health
    ::: benefits of plant-based diets, but at the same time there is also a
    ::: certain bias through out the whole book and I don't feel that
    ::: Campbell is totally honest in his approach. Even though Campbell
    ::: writes about the prevention of cardiovascular diseases he fails to
    ::: mention the Seven Countries Study, the Lyon Heart Study, Greece and
    ::: Crete. Even the Mediterranean diet is not mentioned at all, which
    ::: is strange as Campbell speaks very strongly in favor of the Ornish
    ::: diet and its benefits in the cardiovascular diseases. Campbell also
    ::: passes the omega-3 fatty acids and fish oils very briefly and with
    ::: contempt. If the book were mainly about China, these defects might
    ::: be understandable, but the book is not. I would say that it is a
    ::: book worth of reading but with certain reservations.
     
  8. MMu

    MMu Guest

    > There are many so-called health concerned people that feel that an
    > unnatural, low-fat, plant-based diet is the way to go. Unfortunately,
    > this low-fat myth is based upon studies that supposedly show a
    > diet/heart link. When you look at the data you will wonder how this
    > link has managed to last this long.


    Can you provide evidence (that is: studies) that plant based diets are bad?
    Also: please add some evidence that diets high in fat and low on plants are
    beneficial.
    ...I would love to read that.
     
  9. Roger Rabbit

    Roger Rabbit Guest

    On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:09:41 +0200, "MMu" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> There are many so-called health concerned people that feel that an
    >> unnatural, low-fat, plant-based diet is the way to go. Unfortunately,
    >> this low-fat myth is based upon studies that supposedly show a
    >> diet/heart link. When you look at the data you will wonder how this
    >> link has managed to last this long.

    >
    >Can you provide evidence (that is: studies) that plant based diets are bad?
    >Also: please add some evidence that diets high in fat and low on plants are
    >beneficial.
    >..I would love to read that.
    >


    I don't ever recall making the statement that there are studies that
    clearly show high fat diets to be beneficial. Please do not
    misrepresent me.

    Now, what I *have* been saying in this ng was that studies that try to
    show a diet/CHD link are flawed or actually prove the opposite. i.e.
    Seven Countries, MRFIT, etc. The Framingham study data don't show a
    diet/heart link. To try to pin the blame on fat or cholesterol as the
    cause for CHD is ridiculous and has yet to proven.

    Keys hand-picked seven countries that would prove his conclusion
    (before the study had even been done). Sure enough, the study results
    agreed with his theory of a diet/CHD link. Unfortunately though Keys
    ignored other countries that would have produced much different
    results. If he had included data from the 22 countries from which data
    was available, the study would actually have shown no conclusive link
    between diet and CHD! Dishonest to say the least.

    All that has resulted thus far from studies attempting to show a
    diet/CHD relationship is that there is no direct causal effect. You
    have results showing high instances of CHD correlating with high serum
    cholesterol levels but you also have results showing high serum
    cholesterol levels and low to fairly low instances of CHD! The Swiss
    are a prime example.

    By plant-based do you mean vegan? If that is your definition of
    plant-based then, yes, they are sub-optimal. There have never been any
    vegetarian civilizations in human history. You may find some that
    follow largely plant-based diets but pure vegetarian, uh uh.

    Humans did not begin consuming large quantities of carbohydrates
    until the domestication of animals and cultivation of plants. The
    detrimental results can be seen by studying the fossil records. This
    isn't exactly news.

    I recall reading an article on a BBC web site that reported that
    eating less meat was conducive to a longer life. They were clear to
    indicate "less meat", not "no meat". Excerpt below:

    "But completely avoiding meat was not the healthiest diet, the
    researchers found.

    For every 100 deaths among vegans, there were 66 among vegetarians and
    60 among occasional meat eaters."

    Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2838083.stm

    If I encounter any useful studies in my Internet travels, I'll be sure
    to post them here.

    rr
     
  10. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    Roger Rabbit wrote:
    :: On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:09:41 +0200, "MMu" <[email protected]> wrote:
    ::
    :::: There are many so-called health concerned people that feel that an
    :::: unnatural, low-fat, plant-based diet is the way to go.
    :::: Unfortunately, this low-fat myth is based upon studies that
    :::: supposedly show a diet/heart link. When you look at the data you
    :::: will wonder how this link has managed to last this long.
    :::
    ::: Can you provide evidence (that is: studies) that plant based diets
    ::: are bad? Also: please add some evidence that diets high in fat and
    ::: low on plants are beneficial.
    ::: ..I would love to read that.
    :::
    ::
    :: I don't ever recall making the statement that there are studies that
    :: clearly show high fat diets to be beneficial. Please do not
    :: misrepresent me.
    ::
    :: Now, what I *have* been saying in this ng was that studies that try
    :: to show a diet/CHD link are flawed or actually prove the opposite.
    :: i.e. Seven Countries, MRFIT, etc. The Framingham study data don't
    :: show a diet/heart link. To try to pin the blame on fat or
    :: cholesterol as the cause for CHD is ridiculous and has yet to proven.
    ::
    :: Keys hand-picked seven countries that would prove his conclusion
    :: (before the study had even been done). Sure enough, the study results
    :: agreed with his theory of a diet/CHD link. Unfortunately though Keys
    :: ignored other countries that would have produced much different
    :: results. If he had included data from the 22 countries from which
    :: data was available, the study would actually have shown no
    :: conclusive link between diet and CHD! Dishonest to say the least.

    There is also a /within/ country association between high cholesterol and
    CHD in almost all countries, so it is very difficult to deny that
    cholesterol wouldn't count. I recall that Japan was the only exception in
    this respect. However, I don't think it is a black and white question
    whether cholesterol is a risk factor or not. It would be more accurate to
    say that cholesterol is one risk factor among others (hs-CRP, hypertension,
    smoking, visceral adiposity, homocysteine, triglyserides etc.). Total
    cholesterol:HDL ratio is much better in predicting risk than total
    cholesterol.

    :: "But completely avoiding meat was not the healthiest diet, the
    :: researchers found.
    ::
    :: For every 100 deaths among vegans, there were 66 among vegetarians
    :: and 60 among occasional meat eaters."
    ::
    :: Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2838083.stm

    In the Oxford vegetarian study the fish eaters had the lowest mortality,
    slightly lower than lactovegetarians and occational meat eaters. Meat eaters
    and vegans had the highest mortality.

    I wonder what would be the nutritional reasons to eat meat in addition to
    (fatty) fish. Fish has better fatty acids than meat and fish also contains
    phospholipids that can be beneficial to human cognitive functions.

    --
    Juhana
     
  11. MMu

    MMu Guest

    > All that has resulted thus far from studies attempting to show a
    > diet/CHD relationship is that there is no direct causal effect. You
    > have results showing high instances of CHD correlating with high serum
    > cholesterol levels but you also have results showing high serum
    > cholesterol levels and low to fairly low instances of CHD! The Swiss
    > are a prime example.


    I do not say that saturated fat, per se, is killing people.
    I say that in an average diet saturated fat content and the ammount of
    micronutrients and antioxidants consumed are inversely correlated; and this
    leads to an increased risk to health.

    > By plant-based do you mean vegan? If that is your definition of
    > plant-based then, yes, they are sub-optimal. There have never been any
    > vegetarian civilizations in human history. You may find some that
    > follow largely plant-based diets but pure vegetarian, uh uh.


    No, by plant based I mean that the emphasis should be on the consumption on
    vegetables, fruit and plant-derived products (because of higher
    micronutrient density, lower fat level and level of antioxidants). Meat/fish
    should not be excluded since its a great source for quality protein, some
    minerals and some vitamins.

    > Humans did not begin consuming large quantities of carbohydrates
    > until the domestication of animals and cultivation of plants. The
    > detrimental results can be seen by studying the fossil records. This
    > isn't exactly news.


    > I recall reading an article on a BBC web site that reported that
    > eating less meat was conducive to a longer life. They were clear to
    > indicate "less meat", not "no meat". Excerpt below:
    >
    > "But completely avoiding meat was not the healthiest diet, the
    > researchers found.


    Which I would sign any time.
    It's impossible to bring that to vegan ears though..
    I understand that they do have an opinion on animal handling and so forth
    and I do support that to some degree (animal rights etc.) but thinking that
    this diet is healthy is just possible with closed eyes and closed ears to
    the outside world.

    > For every 100 deaths among vegans, there were 66 among vegetarians and
    > 60 among occasional meat eaters."
    > Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2838083.stm


    Too bad they didn't put an actual reference to the source literature there..
    I would have liked to read the full study.

    It's bad however, that they didn't include people who eat meat _excessively_
    or at least not just "occasionally" in this comparison.. that would have
    been quite an interesting information. leaving that out seems quite odd.
     
  12. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    MMu wrote:

    :: Meat/fish should not be excluded since its a great
    :: source for quality protein [...]

    Not getting enough protein from a vegetarian diet is a persistent myth which
    has no valid basis. There might be other good reasons to eat some fish (or
    chicken) but this is not one of them.

    --
    Juhana
     
  13. MMu

    MMu Guest

    > Not getting enough protein from a vegetarian diet is a persistent myth
    > which...


    I said nothing about not getting enough protein I said something about
    protein quality.

    > There might be other good reasons to eat some fish (or
    > chicken) but this is not one of them.


    " Meat/fish should not be excluded since its a great source for quality
    protein, some
    *minerals* and some *vitamins*."
     
  14. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    MMu wrote:
    ::: Not getting enough protein from a vegetarian diet is a persistent
    ::: myth which...
    ::
    :: I said nothing about not getting enough protein I said something
    :: about protein quality.

    Vegetarian food sources have an equal protein quality in the context of a
    whole diet. Actually vegetarian proteins are /better/ as they are packed in
    a more healthy package than meat. Alongside with meat you get also saturated
    fat and cholesterol but no phytochemicals or fiber.

    ::: There might be other good reasons to eat some fish (or
    ::: chicken) but this is not one of them.
    ::
    :: "Meat/fish should not be excluded since its a great source for
    :: quality protein, some
    :: *minerals* and some *vitamins*."

    There are better reasons for fish eating than those. To my knowledge
    meat/fish do not contain any minerals that you can not obtain from
    vegetarian sources. Actually it is a advantage that you get non-heme iron if
    you are familiar with recent studies about the subject. As far as I know
    there are no nutritional reasons to eat meat in addition to fish. However, I
    do admit that getting long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (especially DHA) and
    certain phospholipids /are/ good reasons for fish eating.

    --
    Juhana
     
  15. Rene

    Rene Guest

    "Juhana Harju" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >

    <snip>
    > I wonder what would be the nutritional reasons to eat meat in addition to
    > (fatty) fish. Fish has better fatty acids than meat and fish also contains
    > phospholipids that can be beneficial to human cognitive functions.
    >
    > --
    > Juhana
    >
    >

    When beef is raised on grass, the fatty acid profile is much better.
    http://news.ucanr.org/newsstorymain.cfm?story=531
    So, in the past when the majority of beef was grass fed, you may not have
    needed so much fish, which may have been harder to get hold of if you lived
    inland.

    René
     
  16. MMu

    MMu Guest

    > Vegetarian food sources have an equal protein quality in the context of a
    > whole diet.


    Vegetables do not have the same protein quality (PD-CAAS, AAS etc.) as meat.
    If you think this is wrong please compare the numbers.

    "In the context of a whole diet" of someone who knows of the problem and
    counteracts it with specific vegetable source combinations that have a
    simiar amino acid pattern that meat has, yes- then they do.. of course.

    Again, i am not saying that vegetarians do not get enough protein-
    I am saying that meat is a source of higher protein quality (according to
    the scientific definition of that word) than most vegetables.

    > Actually vegetarian proteins are /better/ as they are packed in
    > a more healthy package than meat.


    "Protein quality" is not a free-use term in nutrition science- it is well
    defined; vitamin/aox/etc. content is not part of that definition.

    Not that I am very fond of the study presented, but if we assume it is
    legitimate: explain where the 6% higher mortality in vegetarians compared to
    meat eaters comes from..

    > Alongside with meat you get also saturated
    > fat and cholesterol but no phytochemicals or fiber.


    As I already said: "the emphasis should be on the consumption on
    vegetables, fruit and plant-derived products (because of higher
    micronutrient density, lower fat level and level of antioxidants). Meat/fish
    should not be excluded since its a great source for quality protein, some
    minerals and some vitamins."

    > There are better reasons for fish eating than those. To my knowledge
    > meat/fish do not contain any minerals that you can not obtain from
    > vegetarian sources.


    1) "some minerals *and* some vitamins"
    2) Where did I say they do contain minerals that are *not* in vegetables?

    >Actually it is a advantage that you get non-heme iron if
    > you are familiar with recent studies about the subject.


    I did not say a single word about heme-iron.

    > As far as I know
    > there are no nutritional reasons to eat meat in addition to fish. However,
    > I
    > do admit that getting long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (especially DHA) and
    > certain phospholipids /are/ good reasons for fish eating.


    I do not have my souci-fachmann-kraut handy, but i am more than confident
    that meat and fish do not have exactly the same average content of amino
    acids, vitamins and minerals [and not to forget: food contaminants]. The
    combinatory effect seems to be quite a good reason.

    Other than that: bigger food variety?
    Most people still enjoy eating something different every now and then.
     
  17. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    MMu wrote:
    ::: Vegetarian food sources have an equal protein quality in the
    ::: context of a whole diet.
    ::
    :: Vegetables do not have the same protein quality (PD-CAAS, AAS etc.)
    :: as meat. If you think this is wrong please compare the numbers.
    ::
    :: "In the context of a whole diet" of someone who knows of the problem
    :: and counteracts it with specific vegetable source combinations that
    :: have a simiar amino acid pattern that meat has, yes- then they do..
    :: of course.
    ::
    :: Again, i am not saying that vegetarians do not get enough protein-
    :: I am saying that meat is a source of higher protein quality
    :: (according to the scientific definition of that word) than most
    :: vegetables.

    Your definition is a reductionistic approach which has been criticized also
    within the scientific community. In practise people eat whole diets, not
    isolated foods, so it makes sense to evaluate the whole diets. And this has
    been done in the nutrition science also.

    ::: Actually vegetarian proteins are /better/ as they are packed in
    ::: a more healthy package than meat.
    ::
    :: "Protein quality" is not a free-use term in nutrition science- it is
    :: well defined; vitamin/aox/etc. content is not part of that
    :: definition.

    Walter C. Willett, one of the leading nutritionists, has said that "protein
    comes not by itself but has a package of many other nutrients. And that
    package makes a difference in your health."

    :: Not that I am very fond of the study presented, but if we assume it
    :: is legitimate: explain where the 6% higher mortality in vegetarians
    :: compared to meat eaters comes from..

    That is not a fair conclusion. 'Occasional meat eater' is a definition which
    means that you eat actually *very* little meat. From other studies we know
    that regular meat eaters have much *higher* mortality than lactovegetarians
    and about the same mortality as vegans.

    ::: Alongside with meat you get also saturated
    ::: fat and cholesterol but no phytochemicals or fiber.
    ::
    :: As I already said: "the emphasis should be on the consumption on
    :: vegetables, fruit and plant-derived products (because of higher
    :: micronutrient density, lower fat level and level of antioxidants).
    :: Meat/fish should not be excluded since its a great source for
    :: quality protein, some minerals and some vitamins."

    Yes, you have been repeating that over and over again but you have not
    provided good arguments to back the claims you made in the last sentence.

    ::: There are better reasons for fish eating than those. To my knowledge
    ::: meat/fish do not contain any minerals that you can not obtain from
    ::: vegetarian sources.
    [...]

    :: Other than that: bigger food variety?
    :: Most people still enjoy eating something different every now and
    :: then.

    That is not very convincing. I would bet that the diet of most regular meat
    eaters is much more limited in variety than that of most vegetarians. (I am
    not a vegetarian.)

    --
    Juhana
     
  18. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    Juhana Harju wrote:
    :: MMu wrote:
    ::::: Vegetarian food sources have an equal protein quality in the
    ::::: context of a whole diet.
    ::::
    :::: Vegetables do not have the same protein quality (PD-CAAS, AAS etc.)
    :::: as meat. If you think this is wrong please compare the numbers.
    ::::
    :::: "In the context of a whole diet" of someone who knows of the
    :::: problem and counteracts it with specific vegetable source
    :::: combinations that have a simiar amino acid pattern that meat has,
    :::: yes- then they do.. of course.
    ::::
    :::: Again, i am not saying that vegetarians do not get enough protein-
    :::: I am saying that meat is a source of higher protein quality
    :::: (according to the scientific definition of that word) than most
    :::: vegetables.
    ::
    :: Your definition is a reductionistic approach which has been
    :: criticized also within the scientific community. In practise people
    :: eat whole diets, not isolated foods, so it makes sense to evaluate
    :: the whole diets. And this has been done in the nutrition science
    :: also.
    ::
    ::::: Actually vegetarian proteins are /better/ as they are packed in
    ::::: a more healthy package than meat.
    ::::
    :::: "Protein quality" is not a free-use term in nutrition science- it
    :::: is well defined; vitamin/aox/etc. content is not part of that
    :::: definition.
    ::
    :: Walter C. Willett, one of the leading nutritionists, has said that
    :: "protein comes not by itself but has a package of many other
    :: nutrients. And that package makes a difference in your health."
    ::
    :::: Not that I am very fond of the study presented, but if we assume it
    :::: is legitimate: explain where the 6% higher mortality in vegetarians
    :::: compared to meat eaters comes from..
    ::
    :: That is not a fair conclusion. 'Occasional meat eater' is a
    :: definition which means that you eat actually *very* little meat.
    :: From other studies we know that regular meat eaters have much
    :: *higher* mortality than lactovegetarians and about the same
    :: mortality as vegans.

    This might be the original study:

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/516S

    ::::: Alongside with meat you get also saturated
    ::::: fat and cholesterol but no phytochemicals or fiber.
    ::::
    :::: As I already said: "the emphasis should be on the consumption on
    :::: vegetables, fruit and plant-derived products (because of higher
    :::: micronutrient density, lower fat level and level of antioxidants).
    :::: Meat/fish should not be excluded since its a great source for
    :::: quality protein, some minerals and some vitamins."
    ::
    :: Yes, you have been repeating that over and over again but you have
    :: not provided good arguments to back the claims you made in the last
    :: sentence.
    ::
    ::::: There are better reasons for fish eating than those. To my
    ::::: knowledge meat/fish do not contain any minerals that you can not
    ::::: obtain from vegetarian sources.
    :: [...]
    ::
    :::: Other than that: bigger food variety?
    :::: Most people still enjoy eating something different every now and
    :::: then.
    ::
    :: That is not very convincing. I would bet that the diet of most
    :: regular meat eaters is much more limited in variety than that of
    :: most vegetarians. (I am not a vegetarian.)
    ::
    :: --
    :: Juhana

    --
    Juhana
     
  19. MMu

    MMu Guest

    > :: Meat/fish should not be excluded since its a great source for
    > :: quality protein, some minerals and some vitamins."
    >
    > Yes, you have been repeating that over and over again but you have not
    > provided good arguments to back the claims you made in the last sentence.


    Since it is the current scientific mainstream I did not see the need to post
    studies "proving _my_ claims". But we can look at this one for a start :

    http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3932S

    J Nutr. 2003
    Nutritional importance of animal source foods.

    Murphy SP, Allen LH.

    Animal source foods can provide a variety of micronutrients that are
    difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant source foods alone. In
    the 1980s, the Nutrition Collaborative Research Support Program identified
    six micronutrients that were particularly low in the primarily vegetarian
    diets of schoolchildren in rural Egypt, Kenya and Mexico: vitamin A, vitamin
    B-12, riboflavin, calcium, iron and zinc. Negative health outcomes
    associated with inadequate intake of these nutrients include anemia, poor
    growth, rickets, impaired cognitive performance, blindness, neuromuscular
    deficits and eventually, death. Animal source foods are particularly rich
    sources of all six of these nutrients, and relatively small amounts of these
    foods, added to a vegetarian diet, can substantially increase nutrient
    adequacy. Snacks designed for Kenyan schoolchildren provided more nutrients
    when animal and plant foods were combined. A snack that provided only 20% of
    a child's energy requirement could provide 38% of the calcium, 83% of the
    vitamin B-12 and 82% of the riboflavin requirements if milk was included. A
    similar snack that included ground beef rather than milk provided 86% of the
    zinc and 106% of the vitamin B-12 requirements, as well as 26% of the iron
    requirement. Food guides usually recommend several daily servings from
    animal source food groups (dairy products and meat or meat alternatives). An
    index that estimates nutrient adequacy based on adherence to such food guide
    recommendations may provide a useful method of quickly evaluating dietary
    quality in both developing and developed countries.

    or this one:
    Am J Clin Nutr. 2003
    Bioavailability of iron, zinc, and other trace minerals from vegetarian
    diets1,2,3,4
    Janet R Hunt

    "The bioavailability of zinc from vegetarian diets is also likely to be less
    than that of nonvegetarian diets. Plant foods rich in zinc-such as legumes,
    whole grains, nuts, and seeds-are also high in phytic acid, an inhibitor of
    zinc bioavailability (64). Phytic acid values are not listed in most large
    tables of food composition (65) but can be estimated from smaller published
    tables (5, 64). Bioavailability of zinc is enhanced by dietary protein (66),
    but plant sources of protein are also generally high in phytic acid. "

    The effect of phytic acid on divalent ions and their bioavailability has
    been well documented and is known for many years.

    > :: Other than that: bigger food variety?
    > :: Most people still enjoy eating something different every now and
    > :: then.
    >
    > That is not very convincing. I would bet that the diet of most regular
    > meat
    > eaters is much more limited in variety than that of most vegetarians. (I
    > am
    > not a vegetarian.)


    Well.. removing certain food items from the diet plan also reduces the
    maximum possible variety in that diet plan. Thats pretty plain and simple.

    If an average vegetarian actually does have a more diverse diet plan than an
    average meat eater of same sex, age, education etc. remains to be proven. I
    would not bet on that.

    There is a lot of evidence that bioavailability of many minerals (Ca, Zn,
    Fe..) is lower from plant foods. For vitamins B12 and retinol would be
    examples of better availability from animal food sources. So: meat and fish
    are a good addition to a plant based diet.
     
Loading...